UMich 7 Week Seniors 1Solar Sails Aff

1AC PLAN TEXTTentative Plan Text – the United States federal government should substantially increase its support for a large-scale solar sail demonstration project beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

***1AC w/Modules

UMich 7 Week Seniors 2Solar Sails Aff

1AC WARMING ADVWe’ll isolate two scenarios to prevent warming:

First is the sun shading internal link:

Solar Sails would send the effects of warming to pre-industrial levels—also spurs massively new innovation in science and tech.Angel and Worden 5(Roger and S. Pete, both prof. of Astronomy @ Univ. Of Arizona, A Moon-Made Screen in Space to Reverse Global Warming: Is it Now Feasible and Affordable?, International Lunar Base Workshop “Jamestown on the Moon”Washington DC October 12, 2005, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1849.0)

A screen in space could be used to mitigate warming caused by increased greenhouse effect. Recent estimates are that a screen yielding a 1.8% reduction in solar flux could reverse fully reverse the effect of a doubling of CO2 relative to pre-industrial level (1). In a controlled orbit near L1, the Lagrange point a million miles toward the sun, a screen would remain permanently lined up to block a small fraction of the solar radiation. To be effective it would have to be 1000 miles across, and even at gossamer thickness it would weigh millions of tons. In 1989 Early (2) proposed a blocker made either opaque or of thin ribbed glass to deflect away the sunlight. He recognized that the costs of launching so much mass could be prohibitive, and that a practical solution might be found by making the shield from lunar material. Solar power could be used to both process the material into glass and structural elements, and to drive a magnetic rail for launch into the L1 orbit. This idea is now worth revisiting. Global warming is better modeled and defined. The value of maintaining a viable climate can be determined in different ways and is likely to be in the range five to ten trillion dollars, a few percent of world GNP over the next 50 years. The best mitigation strategy will likely be some combination of reducing future CO2 production and shading from space. In order to find this balance, research is needed now to better understand if a shade could be implemented within the above cost ceiling. Such studies would provide an important focus to NASA’s exploration initiative. There are two major elements for any system: the making and launching the shade components on the moon, and the assembly, deployment and maintenance of the very large system.at L1. The basic manufacturing and launch parameters can be derived on the assumption that the shade is to be completed within a few decades. To steer the full spectrum of sunlight away from the Earth the glass needs an average thickness of about 2 microns, and a million square miles will thus weigh 12 million tons. The production rate would need to be some 1000 tons a day, along with several hundred tons a day of titanium or aluminum for structural components. The electric power needed to mine the ore and to process and accelerate 1500 tons/day to 3 km/sec launch speed would be ~ 250 MW. This would require a solar plant with a square kilometer or so of solar cells weighing ~ 1000 tons. At L1, it will be likely be preferable to assemble the shade not as a single structure but as a constellation of many identically sized, free-flying elements. For example, if each self-contained unit were as small as a 14 m square and weighing ~ 1 kg, about ten billion would be needed to make up the shield. The residual force of gravity that pulls each unit toward the center line would be balanced by suitably orientating the redirected light. In manufacture, the moon-derived structural metal would be fashioned into ultralightweight support struts at free-orbiting factories about L1. The screen itself, cut in squares from a 14 m wide roll of thin lunar glass, would be attached to a structural cross with four 10-m long struts connected at a center hub. Each unit wouldinclude tiltable reflecting panels to be used as solar sails for initial placement in the constellation and station keeping, particularly to stabilize any drift in the unstable longitudinal direction. We envisage the constellation as like a large shoal of fish or flock of birds, with control by autonomous computers in each unit to prevent collisions or self-shadowing. The constellation would be three-dimensional. On the smallest scale, the units in any plane would be separated from each other by 14 m in both dimensions. Full blocking would be accomplished by arranging the units in complementary positions in four planes separated longitudinally by ~ 20 m. The structure would be fractal, with the 4-plane blocking pattern repeated on ever larger scales until the constellation would extend longitudinally as much as 1000 miles. The average density would then be only ten units per cubic mile. For each unit the electronics with its own small solar cell might weigh ~1 gram To make ten billion units in 30 years (10,000 days) will require manufacture and placement of a million units a day at L1. If there are 1000 factories working in parallel, each factory would have to complete a unit in little more than a minute. The factories would need to use sophisticated robots made on Earth, and might weigh in the range 1 – 10 tons each. The above rough sketch is given simply to establish feasibility and to focus attention to the broad range of studies that need to be undertaken. Clearly such a massive undertaking is beyond the current state of the art in its use of lunar material and in robotic manufacture. However, the new paradigm based on extensive use of in-situ lunar resources and large scale robotic manufacturing capability on the moon and at L1 appears both feasible. The developments needed for this application with potentially immense benefits to human life on Earth could form a key part of NASA’s New Vision for Space Exploration. Some of the key areas for study and experiment are: 1) Launch costs and the balance of Earth based and lunar based manufacture. There are three major high tech, lightweight elements that would likely be launched from the Earth. The first would be for the moon, the robots, electronics, solar cells, wire, bearings, motors and high temperature ceramics for the lunar manufacturing and rail gun. It would also include the pilot facilities on the moon to bootstrap the local manufacture of

UMich 7 Week Seniors 3Solar Sails Affstructural elements used in full scale lunar operations. The total mass to be delivered to the moon we estimate at around ten thousand tons. At L1, the ten billion control units at 1 g each will weigh also ten thousand tons, and so will the thousand robotic assembly factories if we allow ten tons each. The total mass to be launched from Earth of 30,000 tons is less than 0.2 percent of the screen’s mass, and even at today’s high launch costs of $20,000/kg would cost less than $1 trillion. Reductions in launch cost, however, would give cushion and flexibility to the project. 2) Space experiments – Clearly it would be desirable and practical to place prototype blocker units at L1 within a few years, to test positioning and station keeping by solar sails. The materials would be consistent with expected lunar products, and the units should have the correct mass, e.g 1 kg for the example we have chosen. 3) Development of optimum glass and structural metal composition and manufacturing strategy from lunar ore. A key requirement for the glass is that it remain crystal clear for a century. Solarization would affect solar radiation pressure and the orbital balance of the blocker elements. Prospecting for the optimum ores will be required. Techniques to mass produce the ribbed sheets need to be developed and tested. We envisage that ultimately the glass would be manufactured 14 m wide and rolled up for launch. 4) Computer optimization of the “collective intelligence” of the blocker swarm for robustness and stability. 5) Definition and development of robotic requirements for both the moon and L1 factories. Century long lifetime for the free flyer control units is desired. Also since there will be millions of failures, an almost biological system to identify failed units and sweep them out for refurbishment or replacement before the swarm is damaged. In conclusion, the project is very challenging but is not clearly impossible within the financial target. It seems certain it would attract the best and brightest from across the world to solve the myriad of challenges, in a way that has not happened since Apollo and the Manhattan projects. Now is the time to open channels to bring this talent to bear.

And it can control weather services and decrease warming—current tech is inadequate but the plan would change thatRoy 1(Kenneth-- American Institute of Physics, engineer working in Oak Ridge “Solar Sails - An Answer to Global Warming” The Ultimax Group White Paper #2001-3, The Ultimax Group Inc http://www.ultimax.com/whitepapers/2001_3a.html)

Solar sails can be used to adjust the earth's solar constant (in effect making it a variable that can be controlled). These sails will need to actively track their environment and be intelligent enough to act accordingly. They could be part of the solution, or even the entire solution, to the problem of global warming and climate change. Having solar sails reduce the sunlight hitting the earth could lead to some degree of weather control. The implementation of the solar sail solution requires the development of a large space infrastructure that does not exist today. As a minimum it will require a large-scale, cheap, and dependable low earth orbit access capability. It will probably require lunar mining and materials processing facilities as well as automated manufacturing and lunar launch capabilities. We must come to a far better understanding of the sun, the earth's climate, and how these interact. If the problem of global warming is real, and if the solution involves the use of solar sails, then the infrastructure necessary to build, launch, and control these solar sails will give the people of the earth, not only a better climate, but also access to the solar system.

Shielding the sun would be capable of rolling back WarmingAngel and Worden 6(Roger-- a Regents Professor at the University of Arizona and is on the faculty of the UA astronomy department and the Optical Sciences College, and Research Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona and Director of NASA Ames Research Center, “Making moon sun-shades from moondust”, Summer 2006, Ad Astra, http://www.nss.org/adastra/volume18/angel.html)

The Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1 to 4.5°F (0.6 to 2.5°C) in the next 50 years, and 2.2 to 10°F (1.4 to 5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Global warming will have generally negative impacts on human life and the biosphere, so, to varying degrees, industry, scientists and policymakers are making significant efforts to mitigate the problem. Most proposals for reversing global warming are aimed at lowering greenhouse gases, most notably the Kyoto Treaty, which aims to halt the rise—and eventually to lower—greenhouse gas emissions. Technical solutions to enable current levels of economic activity to proceed with lowered emissions are under investigation and development in private industry and at universities. These solutions focus on finding non-fossil fuels, and, more to the point, non-carbon-emitting energy sources. To this end, nuclear, solar and other energy sources are promising. Dave Criswell, a physics professor at the University of Houston, is exploring the possibility that solar energy

captured on the Moon could be relayed to Earth to satisfy much of its future energy needs. But even if fossil-fuel burning were stopped tomorrow, the current exceptionally high level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would take more than a century to dissipate. Other solutions under study therefore include the capture and underground sequestration of atmospheric carbon. Here we explore another approach for mitigating global warming, or indeed global climate change of any origin, by placing a shield at the Earth-Sun L1 point to redirect sunlight away from the Earth (or toward it to mitigate cooling). Shields Many experts have discussed a screen in space to mitigate global warming. A 2000 study by Bala Govindasamy and Ken Caldeira showed that a screen yielding a 1.8 percent reduction in solar flux could fully reverse the current effect of the doubling of CO2. In a controlled orbit near L1, a screen would remain permanently lined up to

UMich 7 Week Seniors 4Solar Sails Affblock a small fraction of the solar radiation . To be effective, these huge "sunglasses" would have to be 1,000 miles across, and even at gossamer thickness would weigh millions of tons. In 1989, engineer James Early, whose work fostered the creation of Telstar-1, the first American communications satellite, proposed a blocker made of thin ribbed glass to deflect the sunlight. He recognized that the costs of launching so much mass from Earth could be prohibitive, and that a practical solution might be found by making the shield from lunar material. Solar power could be used to process the material into glass and structural elements, and to drive a magnetic rail for launch into the L1 orbit. Early's idea is now worth revisiting. The value of maintaining a viable climate can be determined in different ways, and is likely to be in the range of $5 to $10 trillion—again, just a few percent of world GNP over the next 50 years. In order to find this balance, research is needed now to better understand if a shade could be implemented within the above cost ceiling, and within a few decades. To steer the full spectrum of sunlight away from the Earth, the glass needs an average thickness of about 2 micron—a fiftieth that of a human hair. Even at such light weight, a thousand- mile diameter sheet will weigh 10 million tons. To build the shield in 30 years, glass production would need to be about 1,000 tons a day, along with several hundred tons a day of titanium or aluminum for structural components. The electric power needed to mine the ore and to process it, and to accelerate 1,500 tons a day to escape the Moon and reach the L-1 point, at a 3 km/sec launch speed would be

about 500 megawatts. This would require a solar plant with a couple of square kilometers of solar cells weighing about 2,000 tons. The shade would be built not as a single structure but as a constellation of many identically sized, free-flying parasol elements. For example, if each self-contained unit were as small as a 14-meter square and weighed about 1 kilogram, ten billion units would be needed to make up the shield. In manufacture, the Moon-derived structural metal would be fashioned into ultra-lightweight support struts at free-orbiting factories near L1. The screen itself, cut in squares from a

14meter-wide roll of thin glass also delivered from the Moon, would be attached to a structural cross with four 10-meter-long struts connected at a center hub. Each unit would include tilting reflecting panels, to be used as solar sails for initial placement within the constellation and for station-keeping, particularly to stabilize any drift in the unstable longitudinal direction. We envision the constellation as being like a large shoal of fish or flock of birds, with station-keeping control largely by autonomous computers in each unit to prevent collisions or self- shadowing. A local positioning system like GPS would also be used. To make ten billion units of 14-meter squares in 30 years (10,000 days) would require manufacture and placement of a million units a day at L1. If there were 1,000 factories working in parallel, each factory would have to complete a unit in little more than a minute. The factories would need to use sophisticated robots made on Earth, and might weigh in the range of 1 to 10 tons each. Economics We can make some estimate of the value of global warming from the current "carbon credit" market. Following the 1997 Kyoto Treaty, individuals or nations can purchase excess "credits" for atmospheric

emission of carbon dioxide from nations that produce less than their allocated treaty quota. This amount varies between a few dollars to more than $60 per metric ton. The doubling of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere that the shield described above would alleviate corresponds to about 400 billion tons. Mitigating this using the carbon credit analogy would be worth trillions of dollars. The cost might be financed by selling shield credits to both nations and industries. If a group were to purchase a set amount of shield structure, this would translate directly into carbon credits. In this way, the entire project might be financed "off budget" from government funds. How to Proceed The shield would require three major high-tech elements that would likely be manufactured and launched from the Earth. The first would be the package to enable material production and launch on the Moon. This would include the robots, electronics, solar cells, wire, bearings, motors and high-temperature ceramics for the lunar manufacturing and for the rail gun to launch the manufactured items back off the Moon. It would also include the pilot facilities on the Moon to bootstrap the local manufacture of structural elements used in full-scale lunar operations. We estimate the total mass to be delivered to the Moon at around 10,000 tons. At L1, the 10 billion control units at 1 gram will also each weigh 10,000 tons, and so will the 1,000 robotic assembly factories if we allow 10 tons each. The total mass to be launched from Earth for the entire screen project of 30,000 tons is less than 0.2 percent of the screen's final mass, and even at today's high launch costs of $20,000/kg would cost less than $1 trillion to launch. Reductions in launch cost, however, would be desirable to give cushion and flexibility to the project. The cost of manufacturing the elements to be launched, including the development of the manufacturing and robotic techniques, might bring their costs to $10,000/kg or $3 trillion. Another $20 billion per year might be allocated for project management. The estimated total of less

than $5 trillion is not out of line with the value of the shield—$5 to $10 trillion over several decades. The developments needed for this application with potentially immense benefits to human life on Earth are consistent with the New Vision for Space Exploration, which aims at more affordable access to space beyond near-Earth orbit. We identify several specific near-term activities that should be undertaken. It would be desirable and practical to develop and place a few prototype blocker units at L1 within a few years, to test positioning and station keeping by solar sails. The materials would be consistent with expected lunar products, and the units should have the correct mass, about 1 kg for the example we have chosen. A key requirement for the glass is that it remain crystal-clear for a century. The Sun produces darkening or "solarization" in some glass materials over long periods of time. We need to find glass that is resistant to this effect. Prospecting for the optimum lunar ores will be required. Techniques to produce the glass ingots on the Moon and to mass-produce the ribbed sheets need to be developed and tested. We envision that ultimately the glass would be rolled up for launch. Another valuable near-term step is, thus, to computer-simulate and optimize the "collective intelligence" of the blocker swarm for robustness and stability. The free-flyer control units will have to last for a century or more. Since there will likely be millions of failures, there must also be a system to identify failed units and

sweep them out for refurbishment or replacement before the swarm is damaged. In Conclusion A global-warming Sun shield is a very challenging project, to say the least, but is not clearly impossible within the financial target. It seems certain that it would attract the best and brightest from across the world to solve the myriad of challenges involved, in a way that has not happened since Apollo or the Manhattan Project. It might also represent the first truly large-scale commercial and private-sector use of space, and would certainly be of benefit to the entire population of Earth. Now is the time to begin in earnest the development and testing of these critical technical steps.

New computer simulations show shading the sun sufficient to solvingBBC News 6(Molly Bentley, “Guns and sunshades to rescue climate”, March 2, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4762720.stm)

Consider the notion of shading the planet with mirrors. The US National Academy of Sciences found that 55,000 orbiting mirrors would reflect enough sunlight to counter about half the doubling of carbon dioxide. But each mirror must be 100 sq km; any larger and you would need a manufacturing plant on the Moon, says Dr MacCracken. The price tag of space-based fixes makes them prohibitive - for now. By contrast, the "human-volcano" approach is on terra firma and less costly. Inspired by studies of the Mt Pinatubo eruption of 1991 and the cooling effect of its sulphur plume, one proposal suggests that naval guns shoot sulphur pellets into the air to increase Earth's albedo, or reflectivity. We know that blocking sunlight can counter global warming, but can we get the balance right? Ships could fire sulphur aerosols to mimic the effect of volcanoes "I don't think we can get it right," says Ken Caldeira from the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University in California. "One of the problems of putting sulphate particles in the stratosphere is that it would destroy the ozone layer; so you might solve the global warming problem, but then we'd all die of that." And this from a man whose work supports the idea of dimming the Sun. A few years ago, Dr Caldeira set out to disprove an idea put forward by Livermore physicists Lowell Wood and Edward Teller to cool the Earth with a sheet of superfine reflective mesh - similar in concept to orbiting mirrors. In a computer model, Dr Caldeira and colleague Bala Govindasamy simulated the

UMich 7 Week Seniors 5Solar Sails Affeffects of diminished solar radiation. "We were originally trying to show that this is a bad idea, that there would be residual regional and global climate effects," explains Dr Caldeira. "Much to our chagrin, it worked really well." Acts of hostility The simulation showed that blocking even a small percent of sunlight balanced out the doubling of atmospheric CO2. But in their published paper, the scientists caution against the environmental risks of geoengineering.

Warming causes extinctionTickell, 08 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Guardian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, 8/11, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean , in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction . The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable , bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost , complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods

and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die . Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a

four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way . To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming

processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

Second is the electricity generation internal link:

The energy gathered from one sail could power the earth 100 billion timesNational Review Online 10 (Greg Pollowitz, “Solar Sail Could Power the Entire Earth” http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/248361/solar-sail-could-power-entire-earth-greg-pollowitz, 9/30/10)

Solar and wind power have long been two of the main contenders in the race to find the next big renewable energy resource. Rather than choosing between the two, scientists at Washington State University have instead combined them. Using a massive 8,400-kilometer-wide (5,220-mile-wide) solar sail to harvest the power in solar wind, the team hopes their concept could generate 1 billion billion gigawatts of power, far more power than humanity needs — if they can get that power back to Earth. “It’s quite amazing how much power it can actually produce,” said Dirk Schulze-Makuch, a scientist at Washington State University and a co-author of the paper, which appears in the International Journal of Astrobiology. “In principle it should work quite well, but there are some practical issues.” Solar wind doesn’t act like wind on Earth, and the satellite wouldn’t generate electricity like a windmill. Instead of physically rotating a blade attached to a turbine, the proposed satellite would use a charged copper wire to capture electrons zooming away from the sun at several hundred kilometers per second. According to the team’s calculations, 300 meters (984 feet) of copper wire, attached to a two-meter-wide (6.6-foot-wide) receiver and a 10-meter (32.8-foot) sail, would generate enough power for 1,000 homes. A satellite with a 1,000-meter (3,280-foot) cable and a sail 8,400 kilometers (5,220

UMich 7 Week Seniors 6Solar Sails Affmiles) across, placed at roughly the same orbit, would generate one billion billion gigawatts of power. That’s approximately 100 billion times the power Earth currently uses . Of course, all of that power has to be able to get to Earth. Some of the energy the satellite generates would be pumped back into the copper wire to create the electron-harvesting magnetic field. The rest of the energy would power an infrared laser beam, which would help fulfill the whole planet’s energy needs day and night regardless of environmental conditions.

The result of the solar sail would be dyson dotsRoy, Kennedy, and Fields 10(Ken-- engineer working in Oak Ridge, Robert--president of the Ultimax Group Inc and Congressional Fellow on House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space, and David-- NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador, “Mitigating Global Warming”, Utlimax Group Inc, Springerlink)

To distinguish these rather specialized solar sails from the ones discussed in other chapters, we propose the term Dyson dot. This is a deliberate allusion to the original idea of the Dyson sphere, which was proposed by Freeman Dyson as a system of orbiting space facilities designed to completely encompass a star, thus capturing its entire energy output. The Dyson dot would be designed to block or capture only limited amounts of a star's radiation that would otherwise strike one of its planets. A typical solar sail needs to achieve a mass-to-area ratio on the order of 10 to 20 grams per square meter to be useful. Our Dyson dots can be that light or they can be much heavier. There is no reason they could not range up into the kilogram-per-square-meter range if necessary. One factor to keep in mind is that lighter Dyson dots will experience a significant acceleration due to light pressure, and this requires that they be positioned somewhat closer to the sun, away from the traditional L1 point—perhaps 500,000 kilometers closer to the sun than the traditional L1 point. If it were heavier or less reflective, it could be closer to the usual L1 point.

These dyson dots can generate enough energy to power themselves and a surplus of electricityRoy, Kennedy, and Fields 10(Ken-- engineer working in Oak Ridge, Robert--president of the Ultimax Group Inc and Congressional Fellow on House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space, and David-- NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador, “Mitigating Global Warming”, Utlimax Group Inc, Springerlink)

If we shoot for a similar reduction, we are probably in the ballpark of what would be necessary to deal with global warming. It is important to note that while this approach could adjust the average global temperature, it would in no way address the other environmental issues associated with the continued burning of hydrocarbons. Figure 14.1 illustrates why no stable sunshade can project a shadow spot of exactly the right size, that is, no bigger than Earth's diameter. Some shading is unavoidably wasted due to the geometry of the sun-Earth L1 system. This is the other component of shading efficiency, and the highest possible value—about 82 percent—is obtained right at L1, as depicted in the figure. However, as previously discussed, any sunshade made of a nonmagical material will have to cruise somewhat inside of the sun-Earth L1. The brighter the mirror, the further inside L1 it has to go, and paradoxically the heavier the overall mass and cost, and the less efficient the total project gets. Any real solution will be an exercise in optimizing and trading off against multiple constraints. At the time of this writing, it appears that the gross parameters of an array of sails will vary by a factor of roughly 3: from 300,000 km2 (about the size of the state of Arizona) and 10 to 20 million tonnes (metric tons) at the low end, to about 900,000 km2 (somewhat greater than the entire West Coast of the United States) and 50 to 60 million tonnes at the upper end. For example, using reasonable middle values for the parasol parameters—80 percent reflectivity or albedo, mass 53 grams per square meter, positioned 2,100,000 kilometers from Earth—we would need almost 700,000 km2 of sunshade area to achieve a reduction of 0.25 percent in the solar consta nt , that is, some 37 million metric tons. (This sounds like a lot, but for perspective bear in mind that the United States alone burns about one billion tonnes of coal every year. One supertanker of the many hauling petroleum around the world's oceans weighs about half a million tons fully loaded; and 37 megatonnes is roughly just 3 days' supply of crude oil.) If each Dyson dot has an area of 10 km2, then our array, or school, would consist of 70,000 units. As the mirror gets denser—say, 100 grams per square meter instead of 50—or the climate change problem becomes more severe, then the total mass, and hence the cost, needed to achieve the desired effect on Earth increases. If we want a 1 percent reduction in insulation, then the area, mass, and cost increase by a factor of 4; for 2 percent, they increase by 8. On another level in the grand scheme of things, 37 million tonnes is not so much; it is the mass of a small stony-iron asteroid a mere 300 meters across—a class of rock so small that we have not seriously looked for it yet.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 7Solar Sails Aff

This captures the sun’s power and beams enough back to earth that it would power the entire worldRoy, Kennedy, and Fields 10(Ken-- engineer working in Oak Ridge, Robert--president of the Ultimax Group Inc and Congressional Fellow on House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space, and David-- NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador, “Mitigating Global Warming”, Utlimax Group Inc, Springerlink)

Each square kilometer at Earth orbit receives some 1400 megawatts ofpower. For the task of cooling Earth, it does not matter how much solar radiation the Dyson dot reflects just as long as it is prevented from getting here. If we convert the 20 percent absorbed energy to electricity at 10 percent efficiency we have 28 megawatts of power per square kilometer of mirror. In fact, solar cells—not to be confused with solar sails—have achieved efficiencies much higher than 10 percent with current technology. If we absorbed 70 percent of this energy instead of 20 percent, and converted 20 percent of that to electricity to be beamed back to Earth via maser (microwave laser), then we have almost 200 megawatts per square kilometer. Let's stick with the conservative 28-megawatt number. Keep in mind that we have got over 700,000 square kilometers of solar sail somewhat sunward from the sun- Earth L1 point. Assuming that a typical nuclear power plant produces 1000 megawatts, then our Dyson dot array can boast a power output equal to twenty thousand nuclear power plants. The United States currently has a mere one hundred or so such plants; they produce 20 percent of the country's electricity. It is clear that if we could transmit even a small fraction of the sunpower that Dyson dots intercept to Earth in the form of electricity, we would have enough to provide for all the nations of this world, with plenty left over. Certainly displacing polluting power generation off-world would be a good thing, and a net benefit to the ecosystem, since terrestrial carbon burners waste two thirds of their fuel's energy due to basic thermodynamic inefficiency. The solar wind is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. Some of the helium is the isotope helium-3. Our mirrors will be exposed to the solar wind for many years. They could be designed to capture these particles and then return to a central processing facility at the end of their life span for recycling. Hydrogen, helium, and especially helium-3 could be very valuable to a space-faring civilization. Helium-3 holds great promise as a fuel for fusion reactors that can be easily transported to Earth in an extremely compact hence valuable form.

Solar sails could effectively shade to prevent climate change—they’re virtually free of negative consequences Mautner 93(Michael-- Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, “ Engineering Earth's climate from space ”, March/April 1993, “The futurist”, Vol. 27, Iss. 2; pg. 33, 5 pgs, Proquest)

The screen can be very thin, using metal or plastic films perhaps only about 0.002 mm thick, which can be mass manufactured conveniently. With large, thin structures, the pressure exerted by the solar radiation becomes significant. This acts similarly to the pressure of wind on a sail. In effect, the screen units will be solar sails. Indeed, sailing by the pressure of solar radiation may be an important method of transportation in future space missions. Obviously, the screen or fleet of modular screens must be located between the sun and Earth. The most obvious setup would be a ring orbiting Earth, but problems would arise from atmospheric drag, complications by radiation pressure, and interference with other space activities. Therefore, more-remote locations are needed. One possibility would be one of the five Lagrangian points--positions in space where an object would remain fixed in relation to the sun-Earth-moon system. One of these stable points, called L sub 1 , lies permanently about 1% of the distance from Earth to the sun. The screen could be positioned there, using rockets or gravity to balance the radiation pressure. A third possible location is still farther from Earth. Engineer

and futurist Robert Forward pointed out the possibility of solar sails placed in "levitated orbits," or orbits that are not subject to Kepler's laws tying the period of planetary motion to the distance from the sun because of the radiation pressure. A sail in levitated orbit could remain stationary or orbit the sun at any distance with any period. If made of the proper material thickness, the sails can be positioned one-tenth of the way from Earth to the sun and orbit with the same period as Earth. In this manner, they can remain permanently on the Earth-sun axis and effect the desired amount of shading. The parts of each unit would be adjustable, just as with the sails of a boat. On-board computers and actuators would control the position and orientation of the screen units to adjust the amount of shading. The shading effect that these devices have will be very diffuse--comparable to the effects of a slight, distant, invisible haze. Any direct biological effects should be

minimal. Anyone who has observed an eclipse knows that, even when most of the sun is obstructed, the reduction in the light is barely noticeable. A reduction of the solar light by 3% will be detectable only by scientific instruments and

UMich 7 Week Seniors 8Solar Sails Affwill have no direct effects on the biosphere except through the desired climate effects. Of course, possible effects on crops and on wild flora and fauna will need to be investigated in advance. And, should unexpected problems arise, the screen devices could be easily adjusted or removed. Since the screen would be

constructed from lunar and asteroid materials and manufactured in space using solar energy, there will be no pollution from manufacture and launching, and the cost will be minimized. Deployment in deep space will also minimize interference with other space activities.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 9Solar Sails Aff

1AC ASTEROID DEFLECTION ADVExperts agree that asteroid strikes are inevitable—the impact is eight times the largest bomb ever detonated and risks planetary destruction Columbus Dispatch 7(“Astronomical odds”, February 27, 2007, http://www.dispatch.com/live/contentbe/dispatch/2007/02/27/20070227-D4-00.html)

About twice a year, an asteroid smashes into Earth?s atmosphere with the force of a Hiroshima-size atomic blast. And those are small ones, scientists say; the space rocks vaporize before they can do any harm. When the big one hits, we won?t be as fortunate. Researchers at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting warned that it is inevitable that an asteroid large enough to crack the atmosphere will hit the planet. When it does, it has the potential to be just as awful as the 6-mile-diameter rock that wiped out most life on the planet 65 million years ago. "There is a danger of an asteroid killing the Earth," said David Morrison, an astrobiologist at NASA?s Ames Research Center in California. As for warning, we might have a few weeks. Or none at all. A rogue asteroid could easily blindside us by coming around the sun and approaching Earth with the sun behind it, obscuring views. "You wouldn?t know it until the sky lit up and the impact shook the Earth," Morrison said. Although the chances of any single asteroid striking the globe are fairly remote, there are thousands of potential planet-killers lurking in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Erosion and geologic forces have softened or eliminated most signs of impacts on Earth over the past 4.6 billion years, but you need only look to the moon to see how violent space can be. The pockmarked lunar surface provides a clear picture of how asteroids have rearranged terrain since the solar system formed. And so does the Barringer Meteor Crater, an impact site that spans nearly a mile in northern Arizona, and a crater site in Ohio?s Adams County that is 5 miles in diameter. Asteroid tracking was largely the role of amateur astronomers until a few years ago, when governments started to get involved. NASA, for example, is about 70 percent of the way through an effort to identify all near-Earth asteroids larger than about one-third of a mile in diameter. So far, 840 potentially dangerous asteroids have been named and charted. Comets also are a concern, but there are so many more asteroids that they get the most attention. The closeness of a "close encounter" is relative. There were close encounters on Feb. 1 and Feb. 7, although both asteroids passed about 1 million miles from Earth, according to spaceweather-.com. Other months are busier. In April 2004, five asteroids, each larger than 328 feet in diameter, passed relatively close to Earth. So we can track them. What if one is coming right at us? Scientists now say we have the technology to slightly alter the path of a planet-killer. The 2004 discovery of Apophis, a 1,200-foot-diameter asteroid that appeared headed for a collision with Earth in 2036, moved Morrison and other scientists to call for tracking smaller objects and initiating a plan to nudge stray asteroids into safe orbits. "This is not about science. This is about public safety," said former astronaut Russell Schweickart, who wants the United Nations to take the asteroid threat seriously. Three years ago, scientists said there was a 2.7 percent chance that Apophis will hit Earth. Now, astronomers say the asteroid probably will clear Earth with 20,000 miles to spare. Right now, they estimate the risk of collision is about 1 in 45,000. In 2029, Apophis will pass through an astronomical keyhole, a precise spot in space where gravitational forces could put it on a collision course. "What Apophis would do is destroy (an area the size of) England or northern California," Morrison said. Jay Melosh, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona?s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, said that if Apophis struck Earth, it would produce a 40-megaton blast , almost eight times larger than the most powerful nuclear bomb ever detonated. The explosion would create a crater more than 2 miles wide and obliterate buildings and bridges in a 4-mile radius. Melosh said everything around it would be buried beneath 20 inches of debris. In 1908, an asteroid exploded in the air over remote Siberia. The 10-megaton explosion obliterated herds of reindeer, leveled trees over a 400-square-mile area and, reportedly, knocked a man down 60 miles away. No matter where it strikes, if it does, Apophis is large enough to toss enough dust into the air to cool the planet, causing climate changes severe enough to disrupt worldwide agriculture and threaten civilization, Melosh said. And if it hit the ocean, it would set off a tsunami and send enough chlorine and bromine from vaporized seawater to destroy the ozone layer, he said.

Solar sails are comparatively more effective and efficient at defecting asteroids than existing methods Gong, Lie, and BaoYin 09(all profoseers of aeronatics at Tsinghua University, “Formation flying solar-sail gravity tractors in displacedorbit for towing near-Earth asteroids”, June 2, 2009, Springer Science, http://www.spacesailing.net/paper/200508_SanFrancisco_DachwaldWie.pdf)

UMich 7 Week Seniors 10Solar Sails AffThe methods of NEAs (Near Earth Asteroids) deflection can be classified as HEIMs (High Energy Impulse Methods) and LDLTMs (Long Duration Low Thrust Methods). There are usually two ways of implementing HEIMs: striking at the Asteroid at high relative velocity and a stand-off nuclear blast explosion. There are several kinds of LDLTMs being discussed in literature, such as “rendezvous and push” methods, surface ablation of the object using a laser or solar concentrator, exploitation of solar flux induced perturbations,mass driver, space tug and non-contact gravitational tractor. The typical representatives of HEIMs and LDLTMs are direct impact and “rendezvous and push” methods. Izzo et al. (2005) compares the direct impact method and “rendezvous and push” method. Since the resulting perturbation is due to the reaction principle stated by Newton’s third law, one might think of the impact case as being able to expel at once the entire final spacecraft mass with a relative high velocity and all spacecraft mass is used as reaction mass. The formula tells us that any mass expelled after a time from the deflection start contributes increasingly less to the miss-distance. Therefore, the direct impact method is superior to “rendezvous and push” method in theory (Vasile and Colombo 2008). However, the optimum direction impact is impractical with the consideration of transfer trajectory and the time to impact and the actual achievable miss-distance is different from the optimum value. Ahrens and Harris (1992) present several methods of deflection, including the deflections by nuclear explosion radiation and by surface nuclear explosion. Both methods utilize the energy released by the nuclear explosion to eject themass of the asteroid, which will disturb the velocity of the asteroid. For the radioactive stand-off explosion, velocity change of 1 cm/s for an asteroid of diameter 100 m, 1 km and 10km will require the energy about 0.01–0.1 kton, 0.01–0.1Mton and 0.01–0.1 Gton, respectively. It is mentioned that the method is more effective to deflect a small asteroid because the required escape velocity of the ejection is much larger for larger asteroid. McInnes (2004) considers impacting the asteroid with a solar sail, which can perform a head-to-head impact when solar sail evolves on a retrograde orbit. The relative velocity of impact can reach as high as 60 km/s, the release energy of which is comparable with that of the nuclear explosion . Melsoh (1993) proposes a creative strategy in which solar sail is used to focus sunlight onto the surface of the asteroid to generate thrust as the surface’s layers vaporize. According the formula given in the paper, a 0.5km solar sail collector operating for a year can deflect an asteroid up to 2.2 km in diameter, which is much more effective compared with other strategies. Joseph (2002) proposes another asteroid hazard mitigation method using Yarkovsky effect. The requirements 123 Formation flying solar-sail gravity tractors in displaced orbit for towing near-Earth asteroids 161 of long lead time and changing the diurnal thermal wave of the asteroid makes the method impractical.

Solar sails are the most realistic near-term option for and cost effective method of asteroid deflectionWie 7(Bong, Vance Coffman Endowed Chair Professor of Aerospace Engineering @Iowa State, pHD in Aeronautics and Astronautics from Stanford University, Hovering Control of a Solar Sail Gravity Tractor Spacecraft for Asteroid Deflection, Presented at Planetary Defense Conference, Washington, D.C., March 5-8, 2007, http://www.aero.org/conferences/planetarydefense/2007papers/S3-5--Wie-Paper.pdf)

Propellantless solar sail propulsion, therefore, emerges as a realistic near-term option to such a technically challenging problem of mitigating the threat of NEAs. Solar sails are large, lightweight reflectors in space that are pushed by sunlight.4,5 A previously proposed concept of using solar sails to tow or tug an asteroid requires an unrealistically large solar sail, which is not technically feasible to assemble in space. Furthermore, attaching such an extremely large solar sail to a tumbling asteroid will not be a simple task. However, solar sails have the potential to provide cost effective, propellantless propulsion that enables longer mission lifetimes, increased payload mass fraction, and access to previously inaccessible orbits (e.g., high solar latitude, retrograde heliocentric, and non-Keplerian). In the past, various solar sailing rendezvousmissions with a comet or an asteroid, as illustrated in Fig. 1, have been studied. As illustrated in Fig. 1, asolar sailing concept was studied by JPL in 1977 for a rendezvous mission with Halley’s comet for the 1986 passage.4 Although it soon became an ill-fated mission concept of 1970s, that required a very large, 800-m solar sail to be deployed in space, it introduced the propellantless solar sailing concept to achieve a large, 145-deg orbital inclination change at 0.25 AU in order to rendezvous with Halley’s comet in a retrograde orbit. The recent advances in lightweight deployable booms, ultra-lightweight sail films, and small satellite technologies are spurring a renewed interest in solar sailing and the missions it enables. A solar sailing mission described in Refs. 6-10 utilizes the solar sailing technology to deliver a kinetic energy impactor (KEI) into a heliocentric retrograde orbit, which will result in a head-on collision with a target asteroid at its perihelion, thus increasing its impact velocity to at least 70 km/s. A solar sailing KEI mission architecture, which employs 160-m, 300-kg solar sail spacecraft with a characteristic acceleration of 0.5 mm/s2, was examined as a realistic near-term option for mitigating the threat posed by NEAs in Refs. 7-10, as illustrated in Fig. 2. For example, a head-on impact (at a relative velocity of 70 km/sec) of a 150 kg impactor on a 200-m, S-class asteroid (with a density of 2,720 kg/m3) results in a pure kineticimpact ΔV of approximately 0.1 cm/s. If the asteroid is composed of hard rock, then the modeling of crater ejecta impulse from previous studies would predict an additional ΔV of 0.2 cm/s, which is double the pure kinetic-impact ΔV . However, if the asteroid were composed of soft rock, the previous studies would instead predict an additional ΔV of 0.55 cm/s, which is more than five times the pure

UMich 7 Week Seniors 11Solar Sails Affkinetic-impact ΔV . Thus, an accurate modeling and prediction of ejecta impulse for various asteroid compositions is a critical part of the most kinetic-impact approaches. For a solar sail KEI mission, its solar sail will be deployed at the beginning of an interplanetary solar sailing phase toward a target asteroid and the KEI spacecraft will be separated from the solar sail prior to impacting a target asteroid. The critical, enabling technologies required for the proposed solar sailing KEI mission include: deployment and control of a 160-m solar sail, development of microspacecraft bus able to withstand the space environment only 0.25 AU from the sun, precision solar sailing navigation, terminal guidance and targeting (accuracy better than 50 m at an impactor speed of 70 km/s), and impact-crater ejecta modeling and accurate ΔV prediction. A 160-m solar sail is not currently available, and the deployment and control of such a large solar sail in space will not be a trivial task.

Only the plan is able to spur the necessary advancements to deflect bigger asteroidsGong, Lie, and BaoYin 09(all profoseers of aeronatics at Tsinghua University, “Formation flying solar-sail gravity tractors in displacedorbit for towing near-Earth asteroids”, June 2, 2009, Springer Science, http://www.spacesailing.net/paper/200508_SanFrancisco_DachwaldWie.pdf)

At present, only a 20m × 20m solar sail ground validation project has been successfully completed in 2005 (Murphy et al. 2005; Lichodziejewski et al. 2005). Cosmos 1 solar sail spacecraft was attempted on June 21, 2005 and did not achieve its mission goal because of a boost rocket failure. A 40m × 40m solar sail is currently being developed by NASA and industries for a possible flight validation experiment via the New Millennium Program (NMP) Space Technology 9 program. Solar Polar Imager (SPI) mission, one of the solar sail roadmap missions envisioned by NASA, requires a 160m×160m solar sail. Consequently, it is expected that a 100m × 100m class solar sail will be available within 15 years. In Wie (2007), a 90m×90m weighing 2,500 kg SSGT (soar sail gravitational tractor) is controlled to hover at an altitude of 340m above Apophis and a 5-year towing using this SSGT spacecraft and a 3-year coasting time will result in an orbital deflection of 30 km. Large orbital deflection will require sails of much larger size and mass , which will be beyond the solar sail technology at present or in near future. Therefore, the deflection capability of the SSGT is greatly restricted by the size of solar sail. With the consideration of the solar sail technology at present and in near future, the concept of SSGT formation flying is proposed and it increases the deflection capability by increasing the number of the SSGTs not the size of a single SSGT. 123 Formation flying solar-sail gravity tractors in displaced orbit for towing near-Earth asteroids 163 Fig. 1 A actual-size illustration of a six-sail formation Several SSGTs can be placed in the vicinity of the asteroid, either at static equilibrium points or on displaced orbits above asteroids. As shown in Fig. 1, six 100m × 100m solar sails are uniformly placed on a displaced orbit with a radius of 200m and the number can be increased by placing the SSGTs on different displaced orbits of different sizes and altitudes. We know that the gravitational tractor uses the gravitational coupling to modify the orbit of an asteroid. The mutual gravity between the asteroid and spacecraft will determine the acceleration exerted on the asteroid. Only a component of the gravity is used to deflect the asteroid for a spacecraft on the displaced orbit and the ratio of efficient component is determined by the ratio of the radius to the displacement of the displaced orbit because only the component of the gravity along the direction perpendicular to the displaced orbit plane is cancelled by the solar radiation pressure force. A 100m sail will generate a solar thrust of about 0.056 N, which can cancel the gravity exerted on a 2,500 kg spacecraft on a displaced orbit of 197-m radius and 200-m displacement above the Apophis. The deflection ability of SSFFGT is estimated assuming that sails are on the reference displaced orbit. An option of six 100m sails with each weighting 2500 kg evolving on a 35-deg displaced orbit of 230-m radius and 167-m altitude is proposed. The along-track acceleration produced by the SSGTs in a time of 5 years is illustrated in Fig. 2a. The orbital deflection and velocity increment of the asteroid and the propellant required for station keeping are shown in Fig. 2b–d, respectively. It is found that a 5-year towing of Apophis using six 2500-kg SSGTs will result in an orbital deflection of 95.6 km and velocity increment of about 2.453 mm/s, and an additional 3-year coasting time will result in a deflection of 328.14 km. The orbital deflection is about 10 times of that generated by a single SSGT in Wie (2007), where a 5-year towing using a 90m × 90m weighing 2,500 kg SSGT and a 3-year coasting time result in an orbital deflection of 30 km.

Substantial technologies investments can produce solar sails effective at asteroid deflection in the relative near term Dachwald and Wie 5(Bernd--Scientist, Institute of Space Simulation and Bong--Professor, Dept. of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering @ Arizona State University, “Solar Sail Trajectory Optimization for Intercepting,Impacting, and Deflecting Near-Earth Asteroids” American Institute of Aeronatics and Astronatics, August 15-18, 2005, http://www.spacesailing.net/paper/200508_SanFrancisco_DachwaldWie.pdf)

UMich 7 Week Seniors 12Solar Sails AffA head-on collision yields an impact velocity of more than 80km/s, which is much higher than the typical impact velocity of about 10km/s of conventional missions such as NASA’s Deep Impact mission7, 8 or ESA’s Don Quijote mission.9 The impactor is to be separated from the solar sail prior to impacting the target asteroid, because of the extremely demanding terminal guidance and targeting requirements (the accuracy of the impactor trajectory must be much better than 100m at a relative velocity of more than 80km/s). For the present scenario, several KEI sailcraft will be required to increase the Earth-miss distance to a safe value. For larger asteroids, the impactor may not have to be separated from the solar sail, but the complete solar sail spacecraft could be designed to impact, thereby increasing the impacting mass and thus the resulting 2 of 18 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics v. The critical technologies required for the proposed mission include: (1) deployment and control of a 160m×160m solar sail, (2) development of a solar sail and a micro-spacecraft bus that is able to withstand the extreme space environment at less than only 0.25AU from the sun, (3) autonomous precision navigation, terminal guidance and targeting, and (4) accurate impact-crater ejecta modeling and v prediction. A 160m × 160m solar sail is currently not available. However, a 20m × 20m solar sail structure was already deployed on ground in a simulated gravity-free environment at DLR in December 1999, a 40m × 40m solar sail is being developed by NASA and industries for a possible flight validation experiment within 10 years, and thus a 160m × 160m solar sail is expected to be available within about 20 years of a sharply pursued technology development program.

Low probability of asteroids still requires response given the monumental consequences of such an event—development of large-scale solar sails solves Atchinson 8 (Nancy- Senior Editor for Universe Today, “An Elegant Proposal for Near Earth Asteroid Deflection”, February 22, 2008http://www.universetoday.com/12906/an-elegant-proposal-for-near-earth-asteroid-deflection)

Although the chances of an asteroid hitting Earth appear to be small for any given year, the consequences of such an event would be monumental. The science community has come up with some ideas and proposals for ways to mitigate the threat of an incoming asteroid hitting the Earth. Some proposals suggest almost Hollywood type theatrics of launching nuclear weapons to destroy the asteroid, or slamming a spacecraft into a Near Earth Object to blow it apart. But other ideas employ more simple and elegant propositions to merely alter the trajectory of the space rock. One such plan uses a two-piece solar sail called a solar photon thruster that draws on solar energy and resources from the asteroid itself. Physicist Gregory Matloff has been working with NASA’s Marshall Spaceflight Center to study the two-sail solar photon thruster which uses concentrated solar energy. One of the sails, a large parabolic collector sail would constantly face the sun and direct reflected sunlight onto a smaller, moveable second thruster sail that would beam concentrated sunlight against the surface of an asteroid. In theory, the beam would vaporize an area on the surface to create a “jet” of materials that would serve as a propulsion system to alter the trajectory of the Near Earth Object (NEO.) Changing the trajectory of a NEO exploits the fact that both the Earth and the impactor are in orbit. An impact occurs when both reach the same point in space at the same time. Since the Earth is approximately 12,750 km in diameter and moves at about 30 km per second in its orbit, it travels a distance of one planetary diameter in about seven minutes. The course of the object would be altered, or either delayed or advanced and cause it to miss the Earth. But of course, the arrival time of the impactor must be known very accurately in order to forecast the impact at all, and to determine how to affect its velocity. Additionally, the solar photon thruster’s performance would vary depending on the unique makeup of each NEO. For example, asteroids with a greater density, radius or rate of rotation would cause decreased performance of the solar photon thruster in acceleration and deflection. Even though the solar photon thruster appears to be efficient in its performance, Matloff said that more than half of the solar energy delivered to the “hotspot” on the NEO would not be available to vaporize and accelerate the jet due to other thermodynamic processes such as conduction, convection, and radiation. As expected, a larger collector sail radius would increase the amount of energy available, and would increase acceleration of the NEO. Matloff said this system allows the sail craft to “âttack” against the solar-photon breeze at a larger angle than conventional single solar sails can achieve. This system of sails would not be attached to the NEO, but would be kept nearby the NEO “on station” either with its own thrusting capability or by auxiliary electric propulsion. More studies would be needed to ascertain if a supplementary propulsion system would be necessary. The sails used in the study were both inflatable. However, Matloff believes it might be worth considering a small rigid thruster sail, which might simplify deployment and reduce occultation. Said Matloff, “Hopefully, future design studies will resolve these uncertainties before application of NEO-diversion technology becomes necessary.”

UMich 7 Week Seniors 13Solar Sails AffIndependently of striking the earth, even a small asteroid blast in the atmosphere could trigger nuclear miscalculationBBC News 2(BBC News World Edition, “Asteroids 'could trigger nuclear war’”, July 15, 2002, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2128488.stm)

A small asteroid could accidentally trigger a nuclear war if mistaken for a missile strike, experts have warned. Scientists and military chiefs studying the threat are calling for a global warning centre to be set up to inform governments immediately of asteroid impacts. The risk is seen as particularly grave if an asteroid blast were to happen in areas of military tension, such as over nuclear-armed neighbours India and Pakistan Each year about 30 asteroids several metres in length pierce the atmosphere and explode, with even the smaller sized ones unleashing as much energy as the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima in Japan. Earlier this month, an Israeli pilot flying an airliner over the Ukraine reported seeing a blue flash in the sky similar to the type of blast caused by a surface-to-air missile, despite Ukrainian authorities saying no such missile had been fired. Experts now believe the pilot saw an explosion caused by an asteroid entering the Earth's atmosphere at high speed. Experts met last week in the US capital Washington DC to discuss what might have happened had such an explosion occurred over a volatile area such as the India-Pakistan region. "Neither of those nations has the sophisticated sensors we do that can determine the difference between a natural Neo (near-Earth object) impact and a nuclear detonation," Air Force Brigadier General Simon Worden from the US Space Command told the Aerospace Daily newspaper. "The resulting panic in the nuclear-armed and hair-trigger militaries there could have been the spark for a nuclear war."

UMich 7 Week Seniors 14Solar Sails Aff

1AC SPACE COLONIZATION ADVNASA’s space colonization efforts will fail now due to the lack of a coherent strategyFoust, 11 – editor and publisher of The Space Review (6-6-11, Jeff Foust, The Space Review, “New strategies for exploration and settlement”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1860/1,

The following evening at ISDC, Jeff Greason, president of XCOR Aerospace and a member of 2009’s Augustine Committee, examined the issue of space strategy, or notably a lack thereof. A strategy, he explained, is part of an organizational hierarchy: it provides a “big picture approach” to achieving a specific goal; below that are objectives one uses to measure progress on that strategy towards the goal, and tactics to achieve those objectives. “Strategy is the void that we have right now ,” Greason said in his dinner speech. At one end there is a lot of discussion about tactics, such as the choice of launch vehicles that often dominates debates on space policy, he noted. At the other end, he said, there’s a growing realization of what the goal of the national space program is—although many may not realize it. “We have just started, I think, to realize in the last eight or ten years that we do have a goal for the national space program,” he said. “There is a national consensus among policymakers that we have that goal, but everybody’s kind of afraid to say it, because they’re not sure we can do it.” That goal, he said, is the “s-word”: “It is actually the national policy of the United States that we should settle space.” “It is actually the national policy of the United States that we should settle space,” Greason said. To support that claim, Greason cited a number of studies and speeches, including the conclusion of the Augustine Committee that “the ultimate goal of human exploration is to chart a path for human expansion in to the solar system.” He also noted President Obama’s speech at the Kennedy Space Center last April included a veiled reference to space settlement: “Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite.” What’s missing between the realization of that goal and the ongoing debates about tactics is a coherent strategy to achieve that goal . “ Strategy is the void that we have right now,” he said. “We don’t even have the beginnings of a national agreement on what our strategy ought to be. And until we have one, we’re going to continue to flail.”

And planetary extinction is inevitable absent effective space colonization efforts Schwab 5, Martin, Master of Public and International Affairs degree from the University of Pittsburgh and Bachelor of Arts degree in history and political science from the University of Dayton, former member of Space Security Working Group of the Eisenhower Institute in DC, Homeplanet Defense: Strategic Thought for a World in Crisis, Chapter 1, 2005

We now face multiple threats to our very existence. Rapid climate change, sudden pandemics of disease, asteroid and comet impacts, space warfare leading to auto nuclear annihilation, biodiversity decline, scarcity of fresh water, super volcanoes and gamma-ray bursts from within our galaxy all have the potential to end global civilization. History demands that we do our duty. We must attack the assorted threats in unison. Six billion together cannot fail. All global threats can be defeated by an expanded human presence in space , if for no other reason than evacuation followed by back-populating Earth. Continued medical experimentation aboard the International Space Station (ISS) could yield breakthrough defenses against SARS, the Ebola virus and AIDS, each of which potentially threatens global civilization as we know it. Surveillance satellites, in addition to monitoring Earths natural systems can aid various intelligence agencies around the world to prevent nuclear terrorist attacks against our global civilization. Chapter four of this work examines how harnessing solar power in space can help fight rapid climate change on the renewable energy front, without damaging our interdependent economies by over-reducing global carbon emission. There are many natural disasters that inflict death around our world. However, at our current level of understanding, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, mudslides, earthquakes and tsunamis do not pose planetary threats, nor are they preventable. Their effects on human life and property can only be mitigated. Asteroid and comet impacts are potentially catastrophic planetary threats as well as being the only preventable natural disaster. There is simply no excuse for inadequate planetary defense. There is extensive evidence on Earth, Earths moon, Mercury and Mars of major asteroid and/or comet impacts. There have been many recent observations of minor impacts and near impacts between Earths orbit and the orbits of asteroids and comets of various sizes, velocities and masses. In 1994 we even witnessed multiple comet impacts into Jupiter, each of which would have obliterated Earth. Given the overwhelming evidence available to our policy makers of this reoccurring natural disaster, I can only conclude that the lack of urgency in planning countermeasures is due to natural psychological defense mechanisms of the human mind. After many discussions with genuinely good people, I see that there exists, in

UMich 7 Week Seniors 15Solar Sails Affmany quarters for different reasons a self-loathing of the human spirit. This contributes heavily to our lack of homeplanet defense against all global threats. Rational people would agree that failure of continued human existence on Earth and beyond is an unacceptable option . What is a shame is that even with our relatively advanced level of technology, lack of focus still endangers us to being wiped out, the way the dinosaurs became extinct from an asteroid impact. Part of this looming tragedy that needs to be avoided is to not let our technology become nipped in the bud before we ourselves can expand and evolve in cooperation with each other throughout our solar system. Prospects for this peaceful cooperation exist on Mars, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, on our own moon, on captured asteroids and in space stations. Willful ignorance and inaction are very real threats to human existence. Astronomers note that the science of studying Earth cannot progress much further because it is a study of only one case in an infinite universe. For example, by sending unmanned probes to Venus, Mars and Jupiter, meteorologists now have a better understanding of earthly problems such as the interactions of pollution and acid rain within Earths atmosphere. If there is evidence that Mars once had a northern ocean and perhaps life, what made Mars die and what implications, if any, does this have for Earth? Only as we explore the climates, atmospheres and geologic records of worlds in our own solar system, will we understand how Earth really works. All too often, debates within public policy and international affairs ignore the centrality of space science and exploration in our daily lives. All too often, debates within space policy, including the debate over the weaponization of space, ignore the critical element of the human spirit to create new capabilities in space. Within these same debates, too often the distinction between space exploration and space science are not made, not that these two terms are mutually exclusive. A good way to reconcile these two competing forces in policy would be for the International Space Station to be primarily dedicated to researching the long term effects of the space environment on human physiology and psychology in preparation for missions to Mars and eventually beyond.

Every second we delay commitment on space colonization one hundred trillion people die. Bostrom 04, Nick, professor of philosophy at Yale University (2004, “Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/ astronomical/waste.html)

As a rough approximation, let us say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate of the computing power extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using advanced molecular nanotechnology[2], is 10^42 operations per second.[3] A typical estimate of the human brain’s processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second or less.[4] Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient detail to enable the simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences.[5] Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second. While this estimate is conservative in that it assumes only computational mechanisms whose implementation has been at least outlined in the literature, it is useful to have an even more conservative estimate that does not assume a non-biological instantiation of the potential persons. Suppose that about 10^10 biological humans could be sustained around an average star. Then the Virgo Supercluster could contain 10^23 biological humans. This corresponds to a loss of potential equal to about 10^14 potential human lives per second of delayed colonization. What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even with the most conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the potential for one hundred trillion potential human beings is lost for every second of postponement of colonization of our supercluster.

Space colonization solves hunger, poverty, disease, and pollution, but starting now is key – there’s only a narrow window of time when we have the ability AND the resourcesEngdahl 03 – Newbery Honor winner for Enchantress from the Stars (Sylvia, 11-3-03, Space and Human Survival: My Views on the Importance of Colonizing Space,” www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/ survival.htm)

UMich 7 Week Seniors 16Solar Sails Aff

Myths showing these things are indeed part of the response to a new perception of our environment: the perception that as far as Earth is concerned, it is limited. [A basic premise of my course was that all myth is a response of a culture to the environment in which it perceives itself to exist.] But at the rational level, people do not want to face them. They tell themselves that if we do our best to conserve resources and give up a lot of the modern conveniences that enable us to spend time expanding our minds, we can avoid such a fate — as indeed we can, for a while. But not forever. And most significantly, not for long enough to establish space settlements, if we don’t start soon enough. Space humanization is not something that can be achieved overnight. I have called this stage in our evolution the “Critical Stage.” Paul Levinson [the Director of Connected Education] uses different terminology for the same concept. He says that we have only a narrow window to get into space, a relatively short time during which we have the capability, but have not yet run out of the resources to do it. I agree with him completely about this. Expansion into space demands high technology and full utilization of our world’s material resources (although not destructive utilization). It also demands financial resources that we will not have if we deplete the material resources of Earth. And it demands human resources, which we will lose if we are reduced to global war or widespread starvation. Finally, it demands spiritual resources, which we are not likely to retain under the sort of dictatorship that would be necessary to maintain a “sustainable” global civilization. Because the window is narrow, then, we not only have to worry about immediate perils. The ultimate, unavoidable danger for our planet, the transformation of our sun, is distant—but if we don’t expand into space now, we can never do it. Even if I’m wrong and we survive stagnation, it will be too late to escape from this solar system, much less to explore for the sake of exploring. I realize that what I’ve been saying here doesn’t sound like my usual optimism. But the reason it doesn’t, I think, is that most people don’t understand what’s meant by “space humanization.” Some of you are probably thinking that space travel isn’t going to be a big help with these problems, as indeed, the form of it shown in today’s mythology would not. Almost certainly, you’re thinking that it won’t solve the other problems of Earth, and I fear you may be thinking that the other problems should be solved first. One big reason why they should not is the “narrow window” concept. The other is that they could not. I have explained why I believe the problem of war can’t be solved without expansion. The problem of hunger is, or ultimately will be, the direct result of our planet’s limited resources; though it could be solved for the near-term by political reforms, we are not likely to see such reforms while nations are playing a “ zero-sum game” with what resources Earth still has. Widespread poverty, when not politically based, is caused by insufficient access to high technology and by the fact that there aren’t enough resources to go around (if you doubt this, compare the amount of poverty here with the amount in the Third World, and the amount on the Western frontier with the amount in our modern cities). Non-contagious disease, such as cancer, is at least partially the result of stress; and while expansion won’t eliminate stress, overcrowding certainly increases it. The problem of atmospheric pollution is the result of trying to contain the industry necessary to maintain our technology within the biospherey4 instead of moving it into orbit where it belongs.

And, space exploration will unify nations stopping countries from fighting in the first place – solves your war impacts Sagan ’94, (Carl, professor of Cornell quoted in a book review from, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/1578150000/reviews/103-0095255-1695077)

This logical successor to Cosmos (1980) offers the characteristic Sagan blueprint for humankind's long-term vitality. In 1990, while speeding out of the solar system, the Voyager 1 spacecraft snapped photographs of the planets. From a distance of 3.7 billion miles, the Earth appears as a ``pale blue dot''--a metaphor Sagan (Astronomy and Space Sciences/Cornell Univ.) employs to underscore the utter insignificance of our home world in relation to the great expanse of space. In his usual eloquent and impassioned language, he builds a cogent argument that our species must venture into this vast realm and establish a space-faring civilization. Fully acknowledging the exorbitant costs that are involved in manned spaceflight while we concurrently face pressing social, economic, and environmental problems at home, Sagan asserts that our very survival depends on colonizing outer space. Astronomers have already identified dozens of potential Armageddons in the form of asteroids that will someday smash into Earth. Undoubtedly, many more remain undetected. The only way to avert inevitable catastrophe, Sagan argues, is for nations to join together and establish a permanent human presence in space. Ultimately, he predicts, humans will conquer space because, like the planets that roam the sky (``planet'' means ``wanderer'' in Greek), we too are wanderers. Deep within us lies a spark that compels us to explore, and space provides the new frontier. The exploration of space will inspire the world's young people and unify quarreling nations. Technology has brought humanity to its

UMich 7 Week Seniors 17Solar Sails Affmoment of truth: Our species has the capability either to annihilate itself or to avoid extinction by journeying to other worlds. The preferable choice is obvious to Sagan. The book lacks even the semblance of a specific plan for achieving a space-faring civilization. Nevertheless, Sagan will once again dazzle readers with his brilliance and breadth of vision.

Solar sails make deep-space exploration and colonization viable by 2040Vulpetti, et. al, 7 – Ph.D, member of he International Academy of Astronautics, Associate Fellow of AIAA, and Member of the Planetary Society(2007, Giovanni Vulpetti, Les Johnson, and Gregory Matloff, Solar sails : a novel approach to interplanetary travel, p. 91-110)

As time elapses, humanity's technological progress is certain to continue. After 2040, a substantial in-space infrastructure may well exist. There may be facilities in near-Earth space where space resources or Earth-launched material can be processed to produce solar sails with near-theoretical- maximum performance. Larger sails will be possible in this time frame—with dimensions measured in kilometers. And these large, space-manufactured sails will perform better than their Earth-launched predecessors. Human-Exploration Sailships Current-technology, micron-thick, Earth-launched sails are not yet up to the support of human exploration of the solar system. These sails are too small to carry the tens of thousands of kilograms necessary to support humans between the planets and exploration gear. Also, sail-implemented missions to Mars (for example) using today's sail technology would be of longer duration than rocket-propelled interplanetary ventures. But when sail linear dimensions are measured in kilometers and sail thicknesses are in the sub-micron range, all this will change. The sail may then become the most economical means of transport throughout the inner solar system . New constellations of 21st century space clipper ships might be visible in Earth's night skies as they spiral outward toward Mars or the asteroids. The first of these might be rather modest, a mere 800 meters on a side, carrying 5000 to 10,000-kilogram payloads between Earth and Mars on a recurring basis. While too massive to launch from Earth, such a large- diameter sail could be readily made in space to perform this mission without overly stressing the other sail figure of merit—areal density. Initially, these craft will support exploration missions. But since sailships should be capable of many interplanetary roundtrips without fuel expenditure, human settlements will also benefit from the technology as they begin to grow on celestial bodies beyond the Moon.

Even if all other human colonization attempts fail, the quick transit times of solar sails makes launching of panspermia possible—only chance to populate planets outside of our solar systemMautner 10 (Michael N. Mautner, Ph.D., Research Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, “Seeding the Universe with Life: Securing Our Cosmological Future”, Journal of Cosmology, 2010)

Directed panspermia aims to preserve and expand our family of gene/protein life. Fortunately, the main features of organic gene/protein life are present in every cell, from microorganisms to humans. Therefore, microorganisms can carry the seed our family of gene/protein life, which can develop into many diverse new life-forms. Zuckerman, 1981, Directed panspermia was suggested as a possible origin of life on Earth started by an earlier civilisation, and sending directed panspermia missions from Earth was also discussed briefly (Shklovskii and Sagan, 1966; Crick and Orgel, 1973). The technical requirements and ethics of such missions were developed in more detail (Mautner and Matloff, 1979; Zuckerman, 1981, Mautner, 1995, 1997a) Zuckerman, 1981, Panspermia missions may be aimed at extrasolar planets, at accretion disks about new stars, or at star-forming interstellar clouds. Once these environments are seeded with microorganisms, life may expand there through natural panspermia ( Mautner et al., 2004, Napier 2004; Wikramsinghe et al., 2003). The biological payload may be divided into large numbers of small capsules to increase the chances of capture. For example, each capsule of about 20 micron radius may contain 100,000 microorganisms weighing altogether 0.1 micrograms. The panspermia capsules may be bundled in shielded containers and dispersed at the target. They may be sent also directly as large swarms of small capsules that are easier and cheaper to launch. The panspermia missions need to be: - Launched at sufficient velocities to assure survivable transit times. This can be achieved with present technology using solar sails . - Aimed or

UMich 7 Week Seniors 18Solar Sails Affnavigated to reach the capture zones, whose positions need to be predicted with sufficient accuracy. The probability to arrive at the targets increases with the resolution of proper star motion and with the area of the target (see Appendix). - Decelerated at the target zones, by solar sails approaching the target stars or by drag in the gas and dust at the targets . - Captured into orbit about target stars, or into gas and dust and accreting comets in accreting solar nebulae and interstellar clouds. - Delivered to planets along with meteoritic dust or by cometary impact. The probability of delivery depends on the mixing ratio of the panspermia capsules and the dust, and on the fraction of this dust that is delivered to planets. - Survive and evolve on the target planets. Each of these steps have been considered in detail, and the probability of success has been evaluated (Mautner, 1997a). If the probability of capture of the panspermia capsules is small, large numbers of capsules may be sent to achieve success.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 19Solar Sails Aff

1AC SPACE LEADERSHIP ADVJapan is taking over space-based tech leadership though solar sail innovation—recent IKAROS launch proves Shay 10 (Christopher, “Japan: The New Pioneer of the Final Frontier?,” Time, 6/21/10, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1997768,00.html#ixzz1QK4mKaOZ)

The country that invented the Walkman may be back on track to burnish its image as a technological pioneer . Right now, more than 4.7 million miles from Earth, is a revolutionary spacecraft that could be the future of interstellar travel. Japan's space program, JAXA, confirmed on June 10 they had successfully unfurled the world's first solar sail — a spacecraft that uses the velocity of sunlight to propel it. Then, just three days later, Japan announced what could be an even more impressive accomplishment: a spacecraft that left Earth seven years ago had returned home. Before brilliantly burning up over Australia, the ship ejected a soccer-ball-sized pod — a modest container that may contain the first fragments of an asteroid ever brought to earth and provide clues about the origins of our planet. Not bad for a spacecraft running three years behind schedule and without three of its four engines. These space exploits couldn't have come at a better time for Japan's space agency. With a stagnant economy and massive public debt, the new Prime Minister Naoto Kan has promised to make cuts to Japan's sprawling bureaucracy, and JAXA will surely come under scrutiny. During the previous administration, the Wall Street Journal reported that the government revitalization unit recommended in April the space agency start raising more money from the private sector. Before that, JAXA requested almost $19 million to develop a follow-up asteroid project, but the Hatoyama administration only allocated a meager $330,000. These were not encouraging signs for the future of the agency, and this from the Prime Minister whose wife once claimed aliens took her soul to Venus in a triangular spacecraft. (See Japanese design's greatest hits.) The solar sail may look low-tech, resembling a silver tarpaulin with a hole in the middle, but its successful mission could help future trips to the outer reaches of our solar system. JAXA's Interplanetary Kite-Craft Accelerated by Radiation of the Sun, better known as IKAROS, will be the first spaceship powered without any rocket fuel. Unlike its mythological namesake, in which the Greek prisoner Icarus flew too close to the sun and melted his wings, Japan's IKAROS will use the force of the sun's photons against its sail to propel it closer and closer to the sun. IKAROS' first stop is Venus, and then hopefully the unmanned spacecraft will push past the planet to the far side of the sun. Ships like IKAROS powered by solar sails may not be the fastest spacecrafts, but they're much cheaper than rocket-fuelled ones. Makoto Miwada, a JAXA spokesman, says the IKAROS test will be half the price of a typical large satellite launch. "This satellite is rather cheap," he says. If all this sounds like science fiction that's probably because until recently it was. Solar sails have been featured in science fiction since the early 1960s and even made an appearance in James Cameron's Avatar. The goal of the IKAROS project is to test the feasibility of using sunlight to maneuver a spaceship, and a lot could still go wrong. With the sail's membrane as thin as 0.0075 mm — less than one-sixth of the thickness of a newspaper page — it's extremely fragile, and nothing like this has been done before. Already though, the Japanese succeeded in unfurling the sail in space, something that American groups have failed at doing in two previous attempts, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. In this case, JAXA weighted the corners of the sail. The slow spin of the spacecraft caused centrifugal force to open the sail to full extension.

These Japanese solar sail advancements signal the decline of US space-based tech innovation Mick 10 - senior news editor at independent tech news site DailyTech (Jason, “Japan's Revolutionary Solar Sail Accelerates Towards the Stars,” DailyTech, 7/19/10, http://www.dailytech.com/Japans+Revolutionary+Solar+Sail+Accelerates+Towards+the+Stars/article19078.htm)IKAROS is currently happily accelerating through space via its solar sail, an incredible success for Japan's space program.  (Source: JAXA)NASA is yet again left behind in the space raceOnce the U.S. led in the space race, exploring the moon and sending probes to distant stars .   Now that's far from the case , as funding to the U.S. space program   has been cut   and goals scaled back.   Fortunately, there are plenty of other innovative nations willing to step in and pick up the slack.Japan last month launched the first full solar sail craft   into space, transforming a science fiction dream into reality.   The craft, IKAROS, successfully deployed its solar sail.Now the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency has updated the world on its progress. 

UMich 7 Week Seniors 20Solar Sails AffThe sail is performing extremely well, constantly accelerating, with every passing day.Japanese researchers calculated that each photon striking the sail exerts 0.00025 pounds of force on the sail.  That force adds up slowly, speeding up the the 3,000 square foot sail and its attached 700-pound payload.With the new Japanese success, solar sail look to become the new gold standard for deep space propulsion, until better technologies (plasma engines, nuclear engines) are more fully developed.  And the success is a sign of Japan's growing presence as a space pioneer.Japan plans to land a robotic army on the moon, starting a few years from now.  In the private sector, the Planetary Society, a space research group, and Cosmos Studios of Ithaca, N.Y., headed by Ann Druyan, a film producer and widow of the late astronomer and author Carl Sagan, will launch the LightSail-1, another solar sail design, into space late this year.

Space-based tech leadership is the cornerstone to US global hegemonyStone, 11 – space policy analyst and strategist (March 14, Christopher, “American leadership in space: leadership through capability”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1),

First, let me start by saying that I agree with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that “American leadership is a phrase we hear bandied about a lot in political circles in the United States, as well as in many space policy discussions.” I have been at many space forums in my career where I’ve heard the phrase used by speakers of various backgrounds, political ideologies, and nation. Like Mr. Friedman states, “it has many different meanings, most derived from cultural or political biases, some of them contradictory”. This is true: many nations, as well as organizations and individuals worldwide, have different preferences and views as to what American leadership in space is, and/or what it should be. He also concludes that paragraph by stating that American leadership in space could also be viewed as “synonymous with American… hegemony”. I again will agree that some people within the United Stats and elsewhere have this view toward American leadership. However, just because people believe certain viewpoints regarding American leadership does not mean that those views are accurate assessments or definitions of what actions demonstrate US leadership in the space medium. When it comes to space exploration and development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that space is “often” overlooked in “foreign relations and geopolitical strategies”. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national grand geopolitical strategies by many in national leadership, space is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that the US space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy tool to “shape” the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as “The World We Seek”. Using space to shape the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of “shaping” is that we appear to have changed the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership would start by advancing United States’ space power capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts. The United States’ goal should be leadership through spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining such leadership through capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for all and for America to lead the international space community by both technological and political example. As other nations pursue excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space. The world has recognized America as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned

UMich 7 Week Seniors 21Solar Sails Affspaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space community. One example is shutting down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon retirement of the fleet. We are paying millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lion’s share of the cost of construction. Why would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the stopgap between shuttle and whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to made a decision sooner rather than later. Finally, one other issue that concerns me is the view of the world “hegemony” or “superiority” as dirty words. Some seem to view these words used in policy statements or speeches as a direct threat. In my view, each nation (should they desire) should have freedom of access to space for the purpose of advancing their “security, prestige and wealth” through exploration like we do. However, to maintain leadership in the space environment, space superiority is a worthy and necessary byproduct of the traditional leadership model . If your nation is the leader in space, it would pursue and maintain superiority in their mission sets and capabilities. In my opinion, space superiority does not imply a wall of orbital weapons preventing other nations from access to space, nor does it preclude international cooperation among friendly nations. Rather, it indicates a desire as a country to achieve its goals for national security, prestige, and economic prosperity for its people, and to be known as the best in the world with regards to space technology and astronautics. I can assure you that many other nations with aggressive space programs, like ours traditionally has been, desire the same prestige of being the best at some, if not all, parts of the space pie. Space has been characterized recently as “congested, contested, and competitive”; the quest for excellence is just one part of international space competition that, in my view, is a good and healthy thing. As other nations pursue excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space. If America wants to retain its true leadership in space, it must approach its space programs as the advancement of its national “security, prestige and wealth” by maintaining its edge in spaceflight capabilities and use those demonstrated talents to advance international prestige and influence in the space community. These energies and influence can be channeled to create the international space coalitions of the future that many desire and benefit mankind as well as America. Leadership will require sound, long-range exploration strategies with national and international political will behind it. American leadership in space is not a choice. It is a requirement if we are to truly lead the world into space with programs and objectives “worthy of a great nation”.

Collapse of primacy causes global nuclear conflicts Kagan, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 7 - (Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, 7/19, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html)

This is a good thing, and it should continue to be a primary goal of American foreign policy to perpetuate this relatively benign international configuration of power. The unipolar order with the United States as the predominant power is unavoidably riddled with flaws and contradictions. It inspires fears and jealousies. The United States is not immune to error, like all other nations, and because of its size and importance in the international system those errors are magnified and take on greater significance than the errors of less powerful nations. Compared to the ideal Kantian international order, in which all the world's powers would be

peace-loving equals, conducting themselves wisely, prudently, and in strict obeisance to international law, the unipolar system is both dangerous and unjust. Compared to any plausible alternative in the real world, however, it is relatively stable and less likely to produce a major war between great powers. It is also comparatively benevolent, from a liberal perspective, for it is more conducive to the principles of economic and political liberalism that Americans and many others value. American predominance does not stand in the way of progress toward a better world, therefore. It stands in the way of regression toward a more dangerous world. The choice is not between an American-dominated order and a world that looks like the European Union. The future international order will be shaped by those who have the power to shape it. The leaders of a post-American world will not meet in Brussels but in Beijing, Moscow, and Washington.The return of great powers and great gamesIf the world is marked by the persistence of unipolarity, it is nevertheless also being shaped by the reemergence of competitive national ambitions of the kind that have shaped human affairs from time immemorial. During the Cold War, this historical tendency of great powers to jostle with one another for status and influence as well as for wealth and power was largely suppressed by the two superpowers and their rigid bipolar order. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not been powerful enough, and probably could never be powerful enough, to suppress by itself the normal ambitions of nations. This does not mean the world has returned to multipolarity, since none of the large powers is in range of competing with the superpower for global influence. Nevertheless, several large powers are now competing for regional predominance, both with the United States and with each other. National ambition drives China's foreign policy today, and although it is tempered by prudence and the desire to appear as unthreatening as possible to the rest of the world, the Chinese are powerfully motivated to return their nation to what they regard as its traditional position as the preeminent power in East Asia. They do not share a European, postmodern view that power is passé; hence their now two-decades-long military buildup and modernization. Like the Americans, they believe power, including military power, is a good thing to have and that it is better to have more of it than less. Perhaps more significant is the Chinese perception, also shared by Americans, that status and honor, and not just wealth and security, are important for a nation. Japan, meanwhile, which in the past could have been counted as an aspiring postmodern power -- with its pacifist constitution and low defense spending -- now appears embarked on a more traditional national course. Partly this is in reaction to the rising power of China and concerns about North Korea 's nuclear weapons. But it is also driven by Japan's own national ambition to be a leader in East Asia or at least not to play second fiddle or "little brother" to China. China and Japan are now in a competitive quest with each trying to augment its own status and power and to prevent the other 's rise to predominance, and this

UMich 7 Week Seniors 22Solar Sails Affcompetition has a military and strategic as well as an economic and political component. Their competition is such that a nation like South Korea, with a long unhappy history as a pawn between the two powers, is once again worrying both about a "greater China" and about the return of Japanese nationalism. As Aaron Friedberg commented, the East Asian future looks more like Europe's past than its present. But it also looks like Asia's past. Russian foreign policy, too, looks more like something from the nineteenth century. It is being driven by a typical, and typically Russian, blend of national resentment and ambition. A postmodern Russia simply seeking integration into the new European order, the Russia of Andrei Kozyrev, would not be troubled by the eastward enlargement of the EU and NATO, would not insist on predominant influence over its "near abroad," and would not use its natural resources as means of gaining geopolitical leverage and enhancing Russia 's international status in an attempt to regain the lost glories of the Soviet empire and Peter the Great. But Russia, like China and Japan, is moved by more traditional great-power considerations, including the pursuit of those valuable if intangible national interests: honor and respect. Although Russian leaders complain about threats to their security from NATO and the United States, the Russian sense of insecurity has more to do with resentment and national identity than with plausible external military threats. 16 Russia's complaint today is not with this or that weapons system. It is the entire post-Cold War settlement of the 1990s that Russia resents and wants to revise. But that does not make insecurity less a factor in Russia 's relations with the world; indeed, it makes finding compromise with the Russians all the more difficult. One could add others to this list of great powers with traditional rather than postmodern aspirations. India 's regional ambitions are more muted, or are focused most intently on Pakistan, but it is clearly engaged in competition with China for dominance in the Indian Ocean and sees itself, correctly, as an emerging great power on the world scene. In the Middle East there is Iran, which mingles religious fervor with a historical sense of superiority and leadership in its region. 17 Its nuclear program is as much about the desire for regional hegemony as about defending Iranian territory from attack by the United States. Even the European Union, in its way, expresses a pan-European national ambition to play a significant role in the world, and it has become the vehicle for channeling German, French, and British ambitions in what Europeans regard as a safe supranational direction. Europeans seek honor and respect, too, but of a postmodern variety. The honor they seek is to occupy the moral high ground in the world, to exercise moral authority, to wield political and economic influence as an antidote to militarism, to be the keeper of the global conscience, and to be recognized and admired by others for playing this role. Islam is not a nation, but many Muslims express a kind of religious nationalism, and the leaders of radical Islam, including al Qaeda, do seek to establish a theocratic nation or confederation of nations that would encompass a wide swath of the Middle East and beyond. Like national movements elsewhere, Islamists have a yearning for respect, including self-respect, and a desire for honor. Their national identity has been molded in defiance against stronger and often oppressive outside powers, and also by memories of ancient superiority over those same powers. China had its "century of humiliation." Islamists have more than a century of humiliation to look back on, a humiliation of which Israel has become the living symbol, which is partly why even Muslims who are neither radical nor fundamentalist proffer their sympathy and even their support to violent extremists who can turn the tables on the dominant liberal West, and particularly on a dominant America which implanted and still feeds the Israeli cancer in their midst. Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these

ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons . That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic.It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more

genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible.Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war.People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe.The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world's great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States.

Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -- could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -- this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which

neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other

UMich 7 Week Seniors 23Solar Sails Affexternal influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again.The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.

Second is the innovation internal link:

In general, Space exploration reinvigorates technology and economy at homeVernikos, 9 – Ph.D and Former Director of Life Sciences at NASA (Joan, “THE US MUST LEAD IN SPACE”, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522644,00.html)

The USA must retain its leadership in space through a vigorous exploration program. Space is fertile ground for forging international collaborations in the 21st century. The space-faring club now has five members – the USA, Russia, China, Japan and France/Europe. China and Russia intend to send humans to the Moon. India, S. Korea and Iran declared space-faring ambitions. International collaboration is evident in robotic mapping of the Moon. No single country can afford to send humans to Mars. On the other hand, space launch capability and satellites are dual use – civilian and military. Rockets can be ballistic missiles and the market for such products is hot. Satellites from 43 countries are circling the Earth observing climate change, weather, communications or vital national security. Russia, France and China have overtaken the US in the lucrative commercial launch business. The Return on Investment (R.O.I) from Space Exploration comes in numerous tangible and intangible ways. Space remains a novelty, a source of excitement and inspiration. Walk into a classroom, mention ‘space,’ and you have undivided attention. Channeling this enthusiasm into science or engineering is easy given consistent opportunities for involvement in the great space adventure. This approach is guaranteed to lead to new technologies in unimaginable ways. A mission to Mars or a Moon base requires a proven closed-loop life support system, making sure humans in space live and function effectively safely shielded from radiation. Applications on Earth find their way into new products which improve everyday life, health, create jobs and revenue. The commercial potential of space exploration is huge . Since the mid1990s the manufacture and launch of communication and remote-sensing satellites exceeded government spending. The aerospace and national security industries depend on it. Space tourism is well on its way. Spaceports are appearing across the world. Entrepreneurs like Elon Musk of Paypal see space as a promising investment. SpaceDev is considering space mining. There are ores on the Moon, Mars and asteroids. Exciting discoveries on how gravity on Earth affects health will impact health care costs. For only 0.55% percent of the national budget NASA’s R.O.I. has been remarkable. Continued success hinges on a stable stream of government investment and visionary leadership. Read more:

Innovation through new space systems are key to US preeminence in space leadershipMankins, 9 –25 years at NASA Headquarters and JPL (May 18, John, “To boldly go: the urgent need for a revitalized investment in space technology”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1377/1)

Unfortunately, the elimination of design-to-cost and investments in longer-term innovation have come with a price. By recent estimates, the transportation-related cost of a single human mission to the Moon using the present, low-technology design solution will exceed $5 billion; transportation for two crewed lunar missions per year would require approximately 60% of NASA’s annual budget. Moreover, in-house agency subject matter expertise has been severely affected, as has the Agency’s contribution to US space technology leadership. Overall, the ambitious goals that were articulated by the White House in 2004 have been pushed into the indefinite future. A permanent human outpost of the Moon, development of lunar resources, deployment of large space observatories, and ambitious missions to the outer planets: all of these have been pushed out into the future by 20 years or more. Moreover, it is difficult to envision how such goals could ever be achieved using current systems concepts and concomitant prohibitively high costs. Only new systems concepts, enabled by focused space research and technology developments, can change this assessment. At the same time, real progress

UMich 7 Week Seniors 24Solar Sails Affcontinues to be made by the international space community, grounded in steady investments in new technologies and systems—and resulting in regular accomplishments in space systems. The international flotilla of robotic space missions to the Moon illustrates this point: the US contribution of a single orbiter and a future lander are largely indistinguishable from the missions of other countries. Without an adequate strategy for, and more robust investment in, advanced space research and technology, long-term US preeminence in space exploration and development is doubtful.

Solar sails are a key source of technological innovation - can perform all high energy missions like asteroid and comet rendezvous, sample return missions to Mars and Mercury, and deep space missions – only thing preventing their development is insufficient fundingLeipold et al 98 – Ph.D., works at Kayser-Threde, a leading German high-technology company, has worked in the Institute of Planetary Exploration of the German Space Agency (DLR) (Manfred Leipold, W. Seboldt, A. Hermann, G. Pagel, W. Unckenbold, C.E. Garner, “SM98- ODISSEE - A Proposal for Demonstration of a Solar Sail in Earth Orbit,” Proceedings of a European Conference held at Braunschweig, Germany regarding low-cost space missions, November 1998, sciencedirect)I. IntroductionSolar sails are innovative spacecraft concepts which utilize the momentum transfer of photons on large, highly reflecting sails in space for passive propulsion and orbit transfer, They have been studied in the literature for decades as a novel propulsion system for planetary missions. The idea of solar sailing is not new; ZIOLKOWSKI (1921) and ZANDER (1924) introduced this "˜exotic' idea for propulsion in space. The advantage is obvious: solar sails do not need to carry an active main propulsion system nor any propellant for it. Therefore, extended missions in our solar system and beyond seem possible. Through the continuous low thrust, trajectories could be realized which allow planetary as well as space physics missions with high science priority to be performed. High energy missions in particular, such as a Mercury orbiter mission, multiple main belt asteroid or comet rendezvous as well as sample return missions, or missions going out of the ecliptic plane to e.g. orbit the Sun in a polar plane, could be realized with acceptable flight times [1-7]. Some of these missions can not be reasonably performed with conventional propulsion. Moreover, the low thrust level generated by solar sails does not necessarily increase flight time when compared to a conventional, chemically propelled spacecraft. For missions with high energy requirement very often multiple planetary flybys have to be introduced for chemical propulsion in order to allow the mission to be feasible, which in most cases increases flight time. Solar sail spiral trajectories do not require these gravity assists and can cut down trip times. Practical experience with solar sails is very limited, In the l980's the World Space Foundation fabricated and deployed a 20m x 20m sail on the ground, and fabricated a 30m sail that was stowed in a deployment structure [8]. In the late 80s, for the commemoration of the discovery of America by Columbus 500 years ago, the "˜COLUMBUS 500 SPACE SAIL CUP' was initiated. Three sails were proposed to be launched in 1992 in a stacked configuration on ARIANE IV and delivered to GEO where they were envisioned to begin a race to the Moon [9]. Due to insufficient funding, however, the initiative was canceled, and development of solar sails remained on a conceptual level. A Russian group at NPO Energia successfully completed the reflector technology experiment ZNAMY A II on a PROGRESS spacecraft departing from the MIR space station in February 1993. A segmented disk sail 20m in diameter was deployed by centrifugal forces and reflected light onto the surface of the Earth.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 25Solar Sails Aff

1AC SOLVENCYCurrent US solar sail projects are failing but a successful, large-scale demonstration effort can unlock their potentialFoust 8 - editor and publisher of The Space Review (Jeff, “Review: Solar Sails”, October 6, Google, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1223/1)Solar sails have for decades promised to revolutionize in-space transportation. However, while simple on paper—using large but lightweight sails to reflect solar photons, transferring their momentum to an attached spacecraft—the concept has proven difficult to actually implement, be it because of technological issues or funding problems or just bad luck. Regardless of those setbacks, solar sails still attract interest, primarily because of their potential to maneuver spacecraft through much of the solar system without requiring any fuel. That promise is at the heart of a new book by three scientists who explore how solar sails work and how they can be used.In Solar Sails, Giovanni Vulpetti, Les Johnson, and Gregory L. Matloff try to serve both nontechnical and technical audiences by dividing the book into four parts. The first part of the book provides an overview of chemical and non-chemical space propulsion, principally for non-technical audiences. The second and third parts of the book review potential missions for solar sail spacecraft and how they would be built, including a review of past solar sail mission efforts like the Planetary Society’s Cosmos 1 mission. The last section is something of a technical appendix, examining the physics and engineering of sails; while the first three sections don’t go beyond F=ma and the rocket equation, the final section is replete with equations and other technical data.The result is a book that provides does provide a comprehensive yet readable overview of how solar sails work and how they could be used in the near future. Solar sails, for example, could provide stationkeeping for spacecraft at the Earth-Sun L1 point, eliminating the need for chemical propellants and their corresponding mass and limited lifetime. Their continuous thrust also allows for non-Keplerian orbits that can be used for “polesitting” spacecraft that can provide better communications coverage of the Earth’s poles.So why aren’t solar sails already flying through the solar system? This question doesn’t get that much attention in the book, surprisingly enough, with only a little discussion of recent efforts and near-future plans near the end of the book’s third section. Some proposed missions involving solar sails, like NASA’s Space Technology 9, never got beyond the study stage; Cosmos 1, meanwhile, was built and launched in 2005, but failed to reach orbit because of a failure of its Russian launcher. Japan has tested solar sail deployment technologies on suborbital launches, but doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to deploy a full-fledged solar sail in orbit.At least a partial answer to that question is tucked away in the back, when the book discusses another non-chemical propulsion system, ion engines, that has found greater acceptance. Ion engines won acceptance once NASA’s Deep Space 1 mission successfully demonstrated its use; that mission paved the way for its use on other missions, like the Dawn mission, where ion propulsion provided clear advantages over chemical propulsion. (Missing from this analysis is the relatively common use of smaller ion thrusters on commercial communications satellites, providing a more efficient alternative to stationkeeping than chemical thrusters.) The authors argue that a successful demonstration of a solar sail can open the door to its use on future operational missions that can either be performed more efficiently with solar sails or can only be flown with them. Until a space agency or private venture steps forward to demonstrate what solar sails are capable of, their promise will likely be contained to the pages of books like this one.

Additionally, all planned missions will only answer small technical questions, a new step forward in demonstrations is crucial for a transition to larger sailsCarroll 10 – Ph.D. engineering specializing in small, low-cost satellites, led the team that developed the CSA’s MOST space astronomy microsatellite mission, has been developing solar sail system and mission designs for over 20 years (Kieran, “A Milestone for Solar Sailing,” The Space Review, 8/9/10, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1677/1)The first planned launch is the flight spare of NASA’s NanoSail-D, which is manifested with FASTSAT on a Minotaur 4 launch from Kodiak, Alaska, into low Earth orbit this fall. Dean Alhorn of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center presented an update on that mission, which comes after the original mission was lost due to the upper-stage failure of the third Falcon 1 rocket in August 2008. The two NanoSail-D satellites were notable for having been developed in a very short period of time (about 8 months) via a collaboration between NASA’s Marshall and Ames field centers. The technical objectives are fairly simple, although challenging: to deploy a 10-square-meter sail from a 3-kilogram “CubeSat” nanosatellite, which (without any attitude control) will proceed to rapidly de-orbit. The programmatic accomplishments were quite significant, demonstrating the ability of NASA engineers and managers to cooperate across field center lines, and accomplish a challenging technical task rapidly, harking back to the “can do” attitude of NASA’s early days.The next mission in the pipeline is the Planetary Society’s LightSail-1, which is also a cubesat-sized nanosatellite, in this case massing 4.5 kilograms, which aims to deploy a 32-square-meter sail in orbit around the Earth, with a mid-2011 target launch date. Former Planetary Society president Lou Friedman led a contingent of presenters from their team, which is funded privately via a donation from an anonymous donor. It is a follow-on to the Planetary Society’s ill-fated Cosmos 1 solar sail mission, which was lost when the Russian Volna rocket carrying it in June

UMich 7 Week Seniors 26Solar Sails Aff2005 failed to reach orbit. LightSail-1 is technically more ambitious than NanoSail-D, both because of its lower mass/area ratio (140 versus 300 grams per square meter), and because it has attitude control equipment that will allow it to maintain a commanded orientation relative to the Sun, and hence will be able to produce a deliberately-directed solar sailing thrust force. The mission designers plan to use this thrust to demonstrate using solar sailing to increase the satellite’s orbital energy, spiralling out from their initial orbit altitude by a measurable amount. To be able to accomplish this, the satellite is to be launched into a high enough orbit (above 825 kilometers) to avoid the effects of atmospheric drag, which reduces orbit energy and causes satellite orbits to spiral inwards.Cubesail is another such nanosatellite-based low Earth orbit solar sail mission, this one being developed by the University of Surrey, funded by EADS Astrium and aiming to launch by the end of 2011. Vaios Lappas of the University of Surrey, who leads the student team developing this mission, described Cubesail as a 3-kilogram cubesat with a 25-square-meter sail (and so a ratio of 120 grams per square meter). The main objective of this mission is to demonstrate a capability similar to that of NanoSail-D: using solar sail stowage and deployment technology to greatly increase the drag on a satellite, thus hastening its re-entry, a capability which could be applied to reduce the proliferation of space debris. In addition, Cubesail carries attitude control equipment that will allow it to experiment with solar sailing, with the objective of using solar sailing thrust to change the satellite’s orbit inclination. In addition to these funded nanosats-based solar sail missions, there were additional presentations (including mine) on several other small, low-cost, near-term demo missions that are part-way through development but are not yet fully funded. Collectively they aim to explore a range of different solar sail stowage and deployment approaches, and to test performance of different aspects of solar sails in various different ways. These presentations engendered a stronger feeling of optimism at this symposium than I’ve seen amongst solar sailors for many years, due to the great deal of development activity that is going on at the moment. That feeling is echoed in the formal communiqué issued by the delegates, the New York Declaration.One significant theme underlying many of the presentations at the symposium is that the ultra-miniaturization of satellites in the recently-booming nanosatellite field has been highly useful to the solar sailing community. On a solar sail the “bus” is part of the overhead mass, which reduces sail maneuverability, and the lower this mass the better; nanosats (best-known as the widespread CubeSat variant) have finally driven down the mass of satellite buses to the point where they open up the prospect of quite-maneuverable solar sail spacecraft with reasonably-small sail areas. Even more importantly at the moment, the very-low-cost “microspace” engineering development and management approach used by many microsat and nanosat developers has brought the cost threshold down to the point of matching the slender budgets that solar sailors are currently able to scrounge, enabling many in the current crop of solar sail technology demonstration missions.While almost all of the nanosat-sized missions presented at the symposium are using very similar designs for their solar sail subsystem—a non-spinning square sail supported by four diagonal booms, with the satellite bus at the center of the square where the booms intersect—there are numerous other solar sail designs that have been conceived and studied in the past, some of which were the topics of the other papers presented at the symposium. It seems that the boom-supported square sail is the simplest and lowest-cost and -risk design to use when designing an ultra-small solar sail, factors which are paramount for the current generation of demonstration missions. However, for future operational missions using solar sail propulsion, sail designs are needed that can scale up from the current sizes of 10–35 square meters to sizes well in excess of 1,000 square meters so that they can carry useful payloads. The initial demo missions will answer some very important technical questions about solar sailing, and will push forward the frontier of knowledge and capability for this technology. But a next round of demonstration missions will then be needed in order to demonstrate much larger sails, and to move towards the goal of mass/area ratios in the range of 10–20 grams per square meter. I expect before too long to see a greater diversity of solar sail design approaches being tested and flown.

Despite previous small scale demonstrations of solar sails, a large-scale demonstration is key to the development of larger solar sails vital for deep space exploration

Vulpetti et al. 8 – served as a chair of the Interstellar Space Exploration Committee at the International Academy of Astronautics, acted as a consultant in a team to NASA for studying original mission concepts (Giovanni, Les Johnson – Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA, and Gregory L. Matloff - assistant professor of physics at New York City, Solar sails: a novel approach to interplanetary travel, 2008, p.153-159)

With the advances in solar-sail technology-in the United States by NASA, the Planetary Society, and others; in Europe by DLR and Russia; and in Japan-we might be on the edge of seeing their widespread use for a variety of missions. Certainly the technology is here . We've built large sails and tested them in simulated space environments, we've flown the materials in space, and some have even spun up and

UMich 7 Week Seniors 27Solar Sails Affdeployed sails in low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, these are all subscale, low-cost technology demonstrators that cost significantly less than would their larger, more capable cousins needed for true exploration of deep space. When might we see solar sails in widespread use? Perhaps we can look at the past and make an educated guess about their future. The experience of gridded-ion solar electric propulsion might serve as a good example of a new propulsion technology that followed a path similar to what we might expect for solar sails.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 28Solar Sails Aff

***INHERENCYNO LARGE DEMOS OF SOLAR SAILS NOW

We are currently in the small demonstration stage, larger operational sails must be demonstrated Gilster 09 - professional writer specializing in computers and technology, author of the bestselling The Internet Navigator and Finding It on the Internet (Paul, “Solar Sails: Charting an Operational Future,” Centauri Dreams, 8/4/10, http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=13769)

All of this is heartening news and we can hope that continued success for IKAROS will intrigue the public in ways of getting around the solar system that do not involve chemical propellants. We’re at the small demonstrator sail stage right now as we shake out the needed technologies, but much larger operational sails for inner system missions are in our future, and JAXA has already announced ambitious plans to refine the IKAROS concept into a Jupiter mission that will combine sail propulsion with an ion engine. Let’s hope The Planetary Society’s LightSail-1 gets off in not so many months to add a second space-based experiment to our mission catalog.

Solar Sails are still early in their development phases – like the automobile, the chemical rocket, and the aircraft government investment is necessary for actualizationsVulpetti et al. 8 – served as a chair of the Interstellar Space Exploration Committee at the International Academy of Astronautics, acted as a consultant in a team to NASA for studying original mission concepts (Giovanni, Les Johnson – Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA, and Gregory L. Matloff - assistant professor of physics at New York City, Solar sails: a novel approach to interplanetary travel, 2008, p.149)

At this point in its development, the solar sail can be characterized as fairly late in its theoretical phase and fairly early in its developmental phase. It is probably equivalent to the chemical rocket in 1930, the automobile in 1900, and the heavier-than-air aircraft in 1910. Already, though, enough work has been performed for us to have some understanding of the basic possible configurations that might be considered for various sail applications. Also, the work of the last decade or so has indicated the potential roles of space agencies, private foundations and space societies, and private individuals in the historical and further implementation of space photon sailing.

NO NASA FUNDING FOR U.S. SOLAR SAILS NOWNASA isn’t funding solar sail technology now Gilster 7/22/10 (Paul, Contributor @ Centauri Dreams - News Forum of the Tau Zero Foundation, "The Solar Sail in Context," http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sLuU9xPZ5NYJ:www.centauri-dreams.org/%3Fp%3D13500+solar-sails+NASA+funding&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

So we have the NanoSail-D flight spare scheduled for a fall launch, but what is the future direction of the already extensive NASA work on solar sails? The sad fact is that NASA is not currently funding solar sail technology. Les Johnson goes on to report the upside:

UMich 7 Week Seniors 29Solar Sails AffHowever, NASA is now preparing for a dramatic change in focus toward the development of advanced space technology that will enable new human and robotic exploration of the solar system. Solar sails are a technology that can support this aim, and it is likely that within the next few years NASA will again be aggressively advancing the technology toward mission implementation.Maybe the success of IKAROS will be a spur to the other major space agencies to increase their interest and funding in sail technologies. Let’s hope so.

NASA terminated funding for solar sail demonstrations in the status quo Johnson et al 10 (Les, Roy Young, Edward Montgomery, Dean Alhorn, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, USA, "Status of Solar Sail Technology Within NASA," July, http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/isss2010/ISSS2010Proceedingsvx.pdf)

In the early 2000s, NASA made substantial progress in the development of solar sail propulsion systems for use in robotic science and exploration of the solar system. Two different 20-m solar sail systems were produced and they successfully completed functional vacuum testing in NASA Glenn Research Center’s (GRC’s) Space Power Facility at Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The sails were designed and developed by ATK Space Systems and L’Garde, respectively. The sail systems consist of a central structure with four deployable booms that support the sails. These sail designs are robust enough for deployment in a one-atmosphere, onegravity environment and were scalable to much larger solar sails—perhaps as large as 150 m on a side. Computation modeling and analytical simulations were also performed to assess the scalability of the technology to the large sizes required to implement the first generation of missions using solar sails. Life and space environmental effects testing of sail and component materials were also conducted. NASA terminated funding for solar sails and other advanced space propulsion technologies shortly after these ground demonstrations were completed. In order to capitalize on the $30M investment made in solar sail technology to that point, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) funded the NanoSail-D, a subscale solar sail system designed for possible small spacecraft applications. The NanoSail-D mission flew on board the ill-fated Falcon-1 Rocket launched August 2, 2008, and due to the failure of that rocket, never achieved orbit. The NanoSail-D flight spare will be flown in the Fall of 2010. This paper will summarize NASA’s investment in solar sail technology to-date and discuss future opprortunities.

NASA ending funding for large-scale solar sail developments Gilster 09 (Paul, Contributor @ Centauri Dreams - News Forum of the Tau Zero Foundation, "Getting NanoSail-D Into Space," http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-bBS_S_ny7QJ:www.centauri-dreams.org/%3Fp%3D7131+NASA+solar-sail+nanosail-d+funding&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

We need to find a way to get NanoSail-D into space. You’ll recall that the original NanoSail-D perished in the explosion of a SpaceX Falcon rocket. But the opportunistic mission, a sail whose central components are three inexpensive Cubesats, two of which house a small, deployable sail, may yet get into the black. As we noted in this story from August of last year, a duplicate NanoSail-D is available. The trick is to find the funding and the booster.A joint project featuring The Planetary Society, NASA and the Russian Space Research Institute is attempting to do just that, looking at a solar sail experiment that may or may not involve NanoSail-D. The question is whether the 7 by 7-meter sail is the payload the mission planners will choose, the other option being a Russian-designed sail experiment of equally small size. You can read more about the design choices at The Planetary Society site.Image: The Huntsville-based NanoSail-D team stands with the fully deployed sail at ManTech SRS technologies on April 16, 2008, after the successful deployment test.Remembering what happened to the earlier Cosmos 1 sail, destroyed when the Volna rocket that was to put it into orbit failed, it’s reassuring to hear that the Volna is no longer an option. Launching the new sail on a Soyuz-Fregat booster is

UMich 7 Week Seniors 30Solar Sails Affone possibility, but NASA seems to be holding out the option of a piggyback launch aboard a US vehicle. I still wonder whether another SpaceX Falcon attempt could be made. After all, the cost is minimal. A Shuttle launch comes in at $10,000 per pound of payload, while SpaceX promises costs as little as a tenth of this.Figuring that NanoSail-D weighs less than ten pounds, we could be looking at the launch of an operational solar sail experiment for well less than $15,000, including margins. Moreover, SpaceX is a player. The company has already announced it would donate experimental payload space aboard an upcoming flight of its Dragon spacecraft to support the Heinlein Trust Microgravity Research Competition, just the kind of partnership that could also now be applied to solar sail research.SpaceX was recently awarded a NASA contract to provide cargo delivery flights to the International Space Station. Thus the synergy between the NASA sail researchers and commercial space interests grows, a fact that has to be going through the minds of the solar sail team at Marshall Space Flight Center, as well as The Planetary Society planners and their Russian colleagues as they work toward concluding their nanosail studies this summer.Ponder where we are today. Budget constraints have put an end to NASA’s solar sail work just at the point when we were closing on the vital next step, the deployment and operation of a test sail in space. Now we have a basic sail that can be augmented and enhanced to fly that mission, a potential spacecraft that sits in storage. Surely the lessons learned from building the Cosmos 1 sail can be applied in modifying NanoSail-D to gather data about controlling a solar sail in the environment it was designed for.

SOLAR SAILS SOLVE UNDERSTANDING OF WARMINGSolar sail developments are critical to better understand warming through their use with weather satellitesBlane 98(Douglas-- Consultant engineer at BAE Systems, Physicist, research and development at Rolls-Royce, “Sail of the next century”, July 14, 1998, The Herald (Glasgow, Lexis)

"I began to develop a file of experts in solar sail technology six or seven years ago," says Patricia Mulligan of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the US government agency with the responsibility of describing and predicting changes in Earth's environment. "Colin's name was suggested by a number of contacts, so we began corresponding, and he was retained by us as a consultant. Two years ago the decision was taken at a high level within NOAA to pursue a solar sail mission." Two particular missions are of great interest to NOAA. Weather satellites at present orbit directly above the equator, but to understand the Earth's climate and large-scale changes like global warming, scientists need to know what is happening to glaciers and sea-ice at higher latitudes. A conventional satellite trying to hold position above one of the poles would rapidly run out of fuel, but McInnes has shown that a satellite attached to a solar sail can hover above the Arctic or the Antarctic indefinitely. "The one disadvantage of this polar stationary orbit," says McInnes, "is that it's quite a distance above the Earth's surface. But for studying climate or ice coverage you don't necessarily need high resolution - it's not like spy satellites where you might be trying to read the number plates on cars. Even from a distance you can get a much better view of the poles than from the weather satellites orbiting the equator. The trouble with them is that the further north they look the more the image is foreshortened (which is why you get those satellite pictures on TV with Scotland looking much smaller than England), and they can't see very much at the poles at all."

SOLAR SAILS SOLVE WARMINGSolar Sails can be positioned in special positions above certain parts of the Earth to block out the sun and impact global climateMcInnes 03 – obtained a Bachelor of Science in Physics and Astronomy and Ph.D. in Astrodynamics from the University of Glasgow, Professor of the Department of Aerospace Engineering, visiting researcher at the Central Design Bureau for Unique Instrumentation in Moscow and the Institute for Space and Astronautical Science, Tokyo, fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (Colin R., “Solar Sailing: Mission Applications and Engineering Challenges,” The Royal Society, 11/3/03, http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/361/1813/2989.full.pdf)

(d) NKOs

***WARMING EXT

UMich 7 Week Seniors 31Solar Sails Aff

Due to the continually available thrust from solar light pressure, solar sails are capable of exotic, highly non-Keplerian orbits, so-called because they do not obey the usual Keplerian rules of orbital dynamics. Although some of these orbits require advanced, high-performance solar sails, others are possible using relatively modest solar sails. The solar-sail performance required for these orbits is a function of the local gravitational acceleration. Therefore, to displace an orbit high above the plane of the Solar System requires a characteristic acceleration of the order of 6 mm s−2 (McInnes 1998), while to generate an artificial Lagrange point near the Earth may only require a characteristic acceleration of the order of 0.25 mm s−2 or less (McInnes et al . 1994; McInnes 1999a). While these highly NKOs are not, in principle, forbidden for other forms of low-thrust propulsion, they can only be achieved for a limited duration, fixed by the propellant mass fraction of the spacecraft.

Firstly, using an advanced solar sail it would be possible to choose its characteristic acceleration so that the light pressure force exactly balances the local solar gravitational force. This is possible since both of these forces have an inverse square variation with heliocentric distance. The required characteristic acceleration for such a force balance is ca. 6 mm s−2, corresponding to a mass per unit area of only 1.5 g m−2. Such a high-performance solar sail would enable solar physics missions that could levitate above the solar poles, providing continuous observations, or indeed hovering at any particular location in the Solar System. Such a solar sail could also be used to displace circular heliocentric orbits high above the plane of the Solar System, with the orbit period chosen to be synchronous with the Earth or some other Solar System body (Hughes & McInnes 2002a), as shown in figure 7.

Using a more modest solar sail, the location of the Earth–Sun Lagrange balance points can be artificially displaced (McInnes et al . 1994; McInnes 1999a). The Lagrange points are locations where a conventional spacecraft will remain in equilibrium with respect to the Earth and the Sun. For example, the interior L1 point, 1.5 × 106 km sunward of the Earth is a favoured location for solar physics missions. Since the solar sail adds an extra force to the dynamics of the problem, the location of the L1 point can be artificially displaced, closer to the Sun or even above the plane of the Earth’s orbit. Since the local gravitational acceleration in the vicinity of L1 is small (since solar and Earth gravity almost balance), only modest solar sails are required. For example, a solar sail with a characteristic acceleration of 0.25 mm s−2 can double the distance of the L1 point from Earth. Such a new sunward equilibrium location appears useful for providing early warning of disruptive solar plasma storms before they reach Earth, and indeed formed the basis for the NASA/NOAA Geostorm mission concept (West & Derbes 2000). A solar sail with double the performance can be permanently stationed high above the classical L1 point, so that it appears above the Arctic or Antarctic regions of the Earth, as discussed below.

Geostationary orbit provides a convenient location for telecommunications satellites, providing a fixed line of sight from the satellite to ground terminals. Being located high above a fixed point on the Equator, geostationary orbit also provides an ideal vantage point for Earth observation satellites, providing coverage of large geographical regions. While the advantages of geostationary orbit for telecommunications and Earth observation are clear, there are operational limitations. Due to their location over the Equator, geostationary satellites do not have a good vantage point from which to view high-latitude regions. Imaging of high-latitude regions is degraded by foreshortening, while the poles are entirely excluded from view. Likewise, communication satellites are extremely difficult to view for users at high latitudes due to their close proximity to the horizon, and indeed are below the horizon for latitudes above ±81◦ (Forward 1991).

As discussed above, solar sails may be used to generate artificial equilibrium points close to the Earth. Out-of-plane equilibria, with the solar sail hovering above the Earth’s orbit plane, may be used for continuous low-resolution imaging of the high - altitude regions of the Earth. In fact, if the artificial Lagrange point is located high enough above the Earth’s orbital plane, the solar sail may be stationed directly over the North Pole, or indeed the South Pole, during the summer solstice, as shown in figure 8. It is found that the required solar-sail performance can be minimized by an appropriate selection of polar altitude and that equilibrium location some 3.8 × 106 km (around 600 Earth radii) above the pole will minimize demands on the solar-sail performance. Closer equilibrium locations are possible using larger, or higher-performance, solar sails, or indeed selecting a less demanding viewing geometry. To station a small 50 kg payload at this unique polar view point requires an 86 m × 86 m sail, assuming a sail-assembly loading of 10 g m−2. Although the distance of the solar sail from the Earth is large for imaging purposes, there are potential applications for real-time, low-resolution images for continuous views of large-scale polar weather systems along with polar ice and cloud coverage for global climate studies. Other applications include line-of-sight, low-data-rate communications to high-latitude military and civilian users. These applications are currently being evaluated by the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration for both Arctic and Antarctic applications.

Solar sails effectively reduce global warming and allow climate controlRoy 01 – professional engineer with the US Department of Energy, paper presented at the Space Technology and Applications International Forum in 2001 (Kenneth I., “Solar Sails – An Answer to Global Warming?,” Ultimax, http://www.ultimax.com/whitepapers/2001_3a.htmlThe ability to effectively reduce the solar constant by a similar fraction of a percent should give us enough control to adjust the global temperature to our liking. With the

UMich 7 Week Seniors 32Solar Sails Affsheer number of unknowns swirling around the global warming issue and the complexity of the earth's climate and weather systems, this guess is perhaps as good as we can do today. One significant advantage of the solar sail approach to the problem of global warming is that it’s very flexible. Solar sails in position can quickly and easily be moved “off-line” where they won’t obstruct the sunlight hitting the earth. The deployment rate for new sails is limited only by the infrastructure for their construction and deployment. SOLAR SAILS The idea of solar sails dates back to Tsiolkovsky and Tsander in the 1920s. Most of the writings on the subject have centered on the idea of using solar sails to haul payloads around the solar system. While they may eventually prove useful at this, the basic idea can easily be adapted to reduce the quantity of sunlight hitting the earth by using solar sails as solar shields. ORBITS OF SOLAR SAILS USED AS SOLAR SHIELDS For a solar sail to be effective as a solar shield, it must follow a rather odd orbit. It is required to remain between the earth and sun. Yet in all other respects, its orbit will duplicate that of the earth except that the semimajor axis must be slightly smaller than the earth’s. Equation 1 is Kepler’s third law. Because the periods of the orbits for both the sail and the earth are to be exactly the same we can write equation 2. Because the semimajor axis of the sail’s orbit is smaller than the earth's, we’re required to install a fudge factor (k) in the denominator of the sail term to maintain the equality. We rearrange equation 2 into equation 3 to discover what this fudge factor is. Because we can’t adjust either the sun's mass or the gravitational constant we have to settle for reducing the sun's gravitational acceleration by furnishing a counter acceleration. This is shown in equation 4. In our case, this counter acceleration is going to be provided by the earth’s (and moon’s) gravitational pull on the sail plus the acceleration provided by light pressure on the sail. McInnes 4 developed the acceleration experienced by a solar sail in equation 5 (McInnes, 1999). We can now pull it all together into equation 6. THE MODEL There is no single solution to the problem of what semimajor axis to give to the solar sail’s orbit. There are many possibilities. The author used equations 3, 4, and 6 along with basic orbital mechanics 5 and the specific characteristics of the earth’s orbit 2

to construct a model. The moon causes some problems because it imposes tangential accelerations on the sail that must be countered by the sail. The radial component of the moon’s acceleration also varies in magnitude as the sail-moon distance changes over time. This requires the solar sail to adjust the magnitude of its acceleration. Selecting a semimajor axis 1,600,000 kilometers smaller that that of the earth, and a sail efficiency of 0.9 and using this as input into the model yields figure 1. Week 0 is perihelion. When the earth is between the sail and the moon, the sail’s mass per unit area is at its minimum (In this case 240 grams/meter ²). But as Figure 1 shows, the sail must increase its mass per unit area as the sail-moon distance decreases. . Figure 1. Solar Sail Contraction and Expansion over Time Not only must it expand and contract, the sail must also tilt back and forth to counter the tangential component of the moon's acceleration. This turns out to be a fraction of a degree, but it is there and the sail must actively sense its position and velocity, the position of the earth, moon, and sun, and adjust its position accordingly. REDUCTION OF THE SOLAR CONSTANT To determine the average annual reduction in the earth's solar constant, the sail expansion ratio, the angle of attack, and the distance from the sun must be integrated over time. The model described above does this. It assumes that the solar disk as seen from earth is uniform in its radiation output. Some solutions are listed in Tables 1-3. [Compared to the usual proposals for light sails as propulsion,] solar shields would be very heavy. REFINEMENTS AND FUTURE RESEARCH AREAS The numbers from Tables 1-3 are daunting. However, there are several possibilities for reducing the number of sails needed to achieve a given result: Solar Limb Darkening (described below), and a better design for a solar sail using materials of different efficiencies. The solar sail in the above analysis consisted of a single flat surface of uniform efficiency. A more complex design might prove to be more effective at shielding the earth than the above analysis indicates. SOLAR LIMB DARKENING In the above analyses, the disk of the sun, as seen from earth has been considered as being of uniform brightness. This is not the case. The center of the solar disk, as seen from earth, produces more radiation that the outer limb. This is known as solar limb darkening. This is due to the specific intensity of the solar radiation field having a directional dependence. The outer limb is 40% darker than the center. By blocking the center from the sun from the earth, we will achieve a greater reduction that the above analysis indicates, perhaps by as much as 20%. This aspect of the problem requires additional study. [Ed note: One such concept is shown below.] SOLAR SAILS - SOLAR POWER PLANTS Each square kilometer at earth orbit receives some 1400 megawatts of energy. With a sail efficiency of 0.7, 60% of the solar radiation is not reflected and is available to be captured as useful energy. If even 10% of this non-reflected energy is converted into energy, and then beamed to the earth or the moon, some 84 megawatts of energy from each square kilometer of sail can be made available. In this way, our solar sails could become both a source of energy for human activity and a shield to lower global temperatures. Because these solar shields could weigh up to a kilogram per square meter, the extra weight could be devoted to power generation and transmission equipment. This possibility deserves additional consideration. WEATHER MODIFICATION The effect on earth's climate and weather systems when modifying the solar constant requires considerable more study. Although this paper has treated the earth as a single unit, it is not. The solar constant reduction will not be uniform across all portions of the earth's surface nor is it uniform over time. This effect must be studied in great detail and may open the way for a certain degree of weather control. When a particular longitude moves into high noon, the solar sails could fold up and allow the full sun to get through. Later this would have to be made up by fully opening the sail thus reducing the solar flux for the next longitude. By carefully positioning the solar sails at very specific points, certain latitudes could be cooled more than others. Thus, select points on the earth's surface could be cooled more than others. This invites additional consideration and research. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS Production of the quantity of sails required in Table 1, even if reduced by some fraction, is going to be a major enterprise. Reduction of the solar constant requires only a given area of sail. It does not require that it be one sail or many solar sails. The sail designers are free to size the individual sail(s) to meet production and transportation constraints. While the sails could be made on earth and launched into space, a more efficient solution is probably going to involve the use of lunar materials. Large solar sails constructed on the moon, or in lunar orbit, can be launched fully deployed, without the need to fold up the sail. It will take decades to construct the infrastructure and more decades to produce

the required number of sails. After that, sails that wear out will have to be replaced. CONCLUSIONS Solar sails can be used to adjust the earth's solar constant (in effect making it a variable that can be controlled). These sails will need to actively track their environment and be intelligent enough to act accordingly. They could be part of the solution, or even the entire solution, to the problem of global warming and climate change. Having solar sails reduce the sunlight hitting the earth could lead to some degree of weather control. The implementation of the solar sail solution requires the development of a large space infrastructure that does not exist today. As a minimum it will require a large-scale, cheap, and dependable low earth orbit access capability. It will probably require lunar mining and materials processing facilities as well as automated manufacturing and lunar launch capabilities.We must come to a far better understanding of the sun, the earth's climate, and how these interact. If the problem of global warming is real, and if the solution involves the use of solar sails, then the infrastructure necessary to build, launch, and control these solar sails will give the people of the earth, not only a better climate, but also access to the solar system.

WARMING BAD IMPACTS Warming causes extinctionDr. John Brandenberg, Physicist, Dead Mars, Dying Earth, 1999, p. 232-3

The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuel use continues to power it. Rather than making painful or politically difficult choices such as inventing in fusion or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the industrial world chooses to

UMich 7 Week Seniors 33Solar Sails Affmuddle through the temperature climb. Let’s imagine that America and Europe are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fall. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event occurs—a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents do not occur have paid little attention to life on Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and Russia… Suddenly, the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down as oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See, I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!” Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be a second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is slowly lost – as is its water—because of the ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars – red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy microbes surviving .

There is zero chance of surviving—the earth will explodeThomas Chalko, Ph. D. and Professor of Geophysics at Mt. Best, 10/30/2004 (http://nujournal.net/core.pdf)

Abstract: The heat generated inside our planet is predominantly of radionic (nuclear) origin. Hence, Earth in its entirety can be considered a slow nuclear reactor with its solid ”inner core” providing a major contribution to the total energy output. Since radionic heat is generated in the entire volume and cooling can only occur at the surface, the highest temperature inside Earth occurs at the center of the inner core. Overheating the center of the inner core reactor due to the so- called greenhouse effect on the surface of Earth may cause a meltdown condition, an enrichment of nuclear fuel and a gigantic atomic explosion . Summary: Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior. Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient cooling of the planetary interior - a process that is limited primarily by the atmosphere. This cooling is responsible for a thermal balance between the heat from the core reactor, the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space, so that the average temperature on Earth’s surface is about 13 degrees Celsius. This article examines the possibility of overheating and the ”meltdown” of the solid planetary core due to the atmospheric pollution trapping progressively more solar heat (the so-called greenhouse effect) and reducing the cooling rate of the planetary interior. The most serious consequence of such a ”meltdown” could be centrifugal segregation of unstable isotopes in the molten part of the spinning planetary core. Such segregation can ”enrich” the nuclear fuel in the core to the point of creating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion . Will Earth become another ”asteroid belt” in the Solar system? It is common knowledge (experiencing seasons) that solar heat is the dominant factor that determines temperatures on the surface of Earth. Under the polar ice however, the contribution of solar heat is minimal and this is where the increasing contribution of the heat from the planetary interior can be seen best. Rising polar ocean temperatures and melting polar ice caps should therefore be the first symptoms of overheating of the inner core reactor. While politicians and businessmen debate the need for reducing greenhouse emissions and take pride to evade accepting any responsibility, the process of overheating the inner core reactor has already begun - polar oceans have become warmer and polar caps have begun to

UMich 7 Week Seniors 34Solar Sails Affmelt. Do we have enough imagination, intelligence and integrity to comprehend the danger before the situation becomes irreversible?

WARMING BAD IMPACT CALCULUS Even 1% risk justifies action ---- the consequences are too bigStrom in ‘7(Robert, Prof. Emeritus Planetary Sciences @ U. Arizona and Former Dir. Space Imagery Center of NASA, “Hot House: Global Climate Change and the Human Condition”, Online: SpringerLink, p. 246)Keep in mind that the current consequences of global warming discussed in previous chapters are the result of a global average temperature increase of only 0.5 'C above the 1951-1980 average, and these consequences are beginning to accelerate. Think about what is in store for us when the average global temperature is 1 °C higher than today. That is already in the pipeline, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it. We can only plan strategies for dealing with the expected consequences, and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by about 60% as soon as possible to ensure that we don't experience even higher temperatures. There is also the danger of eventually triggering an abrupt climate change that would accelerate global warming to a catastrophic level in a short period of time. If that were to happen we would not stand a chance. Even if that possibility had only a 1% chance of occurring, the consequences are so dire that it would be insane not to act. Clearly we cannot afford to delay taking action by waiting for additional research to more clearly define what awaits us. The time for action is now.

Climate change outweighs ---- it's high probability and high magnitude ---- and the magnitude alone justifies action ---- comparable to nuclear war during the Cold WarSullivan in ‘7(Gen. Gordon, Chair of CNA Corporation Military Advisory Board and Former Army Chief of Staff, in "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change", http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf)“We seem to be standing by and, frankly, asking for perfectness in science,” Gen. Sullivan said. “People are saying they want to be convinced, perfectly. They want to know the climate science projections with 100 percent certainty. Well, we know a great deal, and even with that, there is still uncertainty. But the trend line is very clear.” “We never have 100 percent certainty,” he said. “We never have it. If you wait until you have 100 percent certainty, something bad is going to happen on the battlefield. That’s something we know. You have to act with incomplete information. You have to act based on the trend line. You have to act on your intuition sometimes.” In discussing how military leaders manage risk, Gen. Sullivan noted that significant attention is often given to the low probability/high consequence events. These events rarely occur but can have devastating consequences if they do. American families are familiar with these calculations. Serious injury in an auto accident is, for most families, a low probability/high consequence event. It may be unlikely, but we do all we can to avoid it. During the Cold War, much of America’s defense efforts focused on preventing a Soviet missile attack—the very definition of a low probability/high consequence event. Our effort to avoid such an unlikely event was a central organizing principle for our diplomatic and military strategies. When asked to compare the risks of climate change with those of the Cold War, Gen. Sullivan said, “The Cold War was a specter, but climate change is inevitable. If we keep on with business as usual, we will reach a point where some of the worst effects are inevitable.” “If we don’t act, this looks more like a high probability/high consequence scenario,” he added. Gen. Sullivan shifted from risk assessment to risk management. “In the Cold War, there was a concerted effort by all leadership—political and military, national and international—to avoid a potential

UMich 7 Week Seniors 35Solar Sails Affconflict,” he said. “I think it was well known in military circles that we had to do everything in our power to create an environment where the national command authority—the president and his senior advisers—were not forced to make choices regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

Warming leads to global inequality risking nuclear warStott in ‘7(Robin, Vice Chair @ Grayson Centre, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, “Climate change, poverty and war”, 100:9, p. 399-402)These alterations in global ecology are aggravating the already parlous state of the world's most vulnerable populations, and if not tackled will lead to widespread social and economic devastation; the consequences of which, though caused by the rich, fall most heavily on the poor, in an all too familiar story. The impact of climate change is to widen the already substantial resource gulf between the rich and the poor. This gap is increasingly recognized as a significant cause of the increasing levels of despair and desperation among the dispossessed,2 emotions which frequently spiral into violent conflict. The widening gap is mirrored in the deteriorating health status of the poor (Box 3). The security implications of climate change have been debated in the UN Security Council; Margaret Beckett, the UK Foreign Secretary at the time, stated that ‘An unstable climate will exacerbate some of the core drivers of conflict’.3 The US Senate is debating a Bill to have climate change recognized as a security concern,4 and in a report on US National Security, senior American military personnel described climate change as a ‘threat multiplier’ for instability.5 It is not surprising that when considering the major threats to the health of humanity, the interrelated problems of climate change and the gulf between the rich and poor are seen as triggers for war, risking the ultimate health crisis of nuclear war. Resolving these interrelated risks is therefore the key to reducing the possibilities of violent conflict and improving global public health. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), amongst others, unequivocally state that these global problems can only be resolved through the development and implementation of a global framework.6-8 One framework which fulfils the demanding requirements of controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the same time as reducing the inequity between rich and poor is Contraction and Convergence, developed by the Global Commons Institute.9

APHOPHIS IMPACT MAGNIFIERAphophis is coming and would cause 100000 times the size of a nuclear attack—devestating humanityJha 7 (Alok—Science correspondant for the guardian, “Asteroid Attack”, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2007/aug/31/asteroidattack)

Nasa has estimated that, if the asteroid hit the Earth, it would release more than 100,000 times the energy released in the nuclear blast over Hiroshima . Thousands of square kilometres would be directly affected by the blast but the whole of the Earth would see the effects of the dust released into the atmosphere. Aerospace company Astrium will propose a mission today, called Apex, that would launch in 2013 to meet Apophis and study it in detail. It is being submitted to the Planetary Society, an international group of scientists and members of the public set up by Carl Sagan, which has offered a $50,000 prize for a mission designed to track Apophis. "It is imperative to collect

***ASTEROIDS EXT

UMich 7 Week Seniors 36Solar Sails Affdata on Apophis as soon as we can because once we know it's on a collision course the safest way to avoid disaster is to nudge the asteroid to change its orbit," said Mike Healy, Astrium's space science director. "If we leave it too long it will be impossible to build a spacecraft powerful enough to move its orbit. Ideally we would need to nudge it before 2025 to be sure it misses." The 390m-wide Apophis had been tracked on and off since its discovery in June 2004. In December that year, it started causing astronomers serious concern - projecting its future orbit, they calculated that it had a 1 in 37 chance of hitting the Earth in 2029. That collission was evetually ruled out but the asteroid is on permanent watch and astronomers are looking ahead to April 13 2029, when Apophis will come close enough to the Earth to be deflected in its orbit. If that change makes it pass through a particular point in space, called the keyhole, it will collide with the Earth on its next passage, in 2036.

SOLAR SAILS KEY TO SOLVE ASTEROIDSStatus quo operations are infeasible, a large solar system is necessary to solve the asteroid advantageGong, Li, and Gao 10(all profoseers of aeronatics at Tsinghua University, “Dynamics and control of a solar collector system for near Earth object deflection”, July 1, 2010 Serial Solutions 360, Ad Astra)

(5) Two design features of a method for asteroid deflection are very important and are always used to judge the feasibility of the method — deflection capability and practicability. The solar collector plan has always been criticized for its impracticability though it possesses the advantage of deflection capability. The most important disadvantages are the physical limitations of the collectors. The first limitation is the requirement of a large solar sail system and the second 218 S. P. Gong et al. 0 2 4 6 −5 0 5 x 10−4 time (d) f 2 c (m/s2) 0 2 4 6 −0.01 0 0.01 time (d) f 3 c (m/s2) 0 2 4 6 −2 0 2 time (d) M 2 c (Nm) 0 2 4 6 −5 0 5 x 10−4 time (d) M 3 c (Nm) Fig. 4 Control forces for the whole system (dashed lines: fc 2x, fc 3x, Mc 2x and Mc 3x; solid lines: fc 2y, fc 3y,Mc 2y and Mc 3y; dash-dotted lines: fc 2z, fc 3z,Mc 2z and Mc 3z). 10 20 30 0 1 2 x 10−3 time (d) |r 2 −r 2 r | (m) 10 20 30 0 2 4 x 10−3 time (d) |r 3 −r 3 r | (m) 10 20 30 1.06 1.08 x 10−6 time (d) χ2 −χ2 r (rad) 10 20 30 2 3 4 x 10−5 time (d) χ3 −χ3 r (rad) Fig. 5 Position and attitude errors of the controlled system (solid lines: ψ2−ψr 2 and ψ3−ψr 3; dashed lines: θ2 − θr 2 and θ3 − θr 3). 0 200 400 600 2 4 6 time (d) F 2 (N) 0 200 400 600 0 0.2 0.4 time (d) F 3 (N) 0 20 40 0 500 time (d) m p2 (kg) 0 20 40 0 20 40 time (d) m p3 (kg) Fig. 6 Control forces and propellant required during station keeping. Dynamics and Control of a Solar Collector System for Near Earth Object Deflection 219 one is the short lifetime of the collector immersed in the mass flow. The developments of solar sail technology, including lightweight deployable booms, ultra-lightweight sail films, MEMS and the related deployment technology, would make a large solar sail system possible in the future. Therefore, the short lifetime of the collector becomes a bottleneck for the method. A Cassegrain-like arrangement of two collectors can mitigate the short lifetime effects. As discussed in Melosh et al. (2002), this system requires high-accuracy in the relative position and attitude of the two collectors. In addition, the smaller collector should be abandoned at the end of its life and replaced by a new one. The solar collector is also a non-contact deflection method and similar to a gravitational tractor. The practicability of a deflection method is a systematic and complex problem. It involves many fields. Here, only the deflection capabilities of different methods are compared. The total efficiency of the SCS (Solar Collector System) is assumed to be 0.5 for comparison. The total efficiency may be lower than 0.5 for some design parameters, which does not influence the comparison results.With the conditions given below, the deflection abilities of the SCS, GT (Gravitational Tractor) and SSGT (Solar Sail Gravitational Tractor) are compared.

Solar Sails avoid air pollution and can better deflect astroidsGong, Lie, and BaoYin 09(all profoseers of aeronatics at Tsinghua University, “Formation flying solar-sail gravity tractors in displacedorbit for towing near-Earth asteroids”, June 2, 2009, Springer Science, http://www.spacesailing.net/paper/200508_SanFrancisco_DachwaldWie.pdf)

For the “rendezvous and push” method, the pusher has to be attached to the surface of the asteroid, where the attraction is weak and the surface characteristics are unknown. Besides, the self-rotation of the asteroid will influence the implementation of the thrust. For the direct impact method, the chance of success is dependent on the composition of the asteroid. Barerock and porous regolith will generate completely different results for the same size asteroids. The nuclear explosionmay produce space nuclear pollution and may also generate some small fragmentations that threaten the Earth in another way and creates orbital debris on a solar system scale. The solar collector seems very attractive with the orbital deflection distance and working time considered.However, the

UMich 7 Week Seniors 37Solar Sails Afflarge solar collector has to be delivered to the asteroid first and extra station keeping propulsion system is necessary to keep the collector properly orientated. Besides, the method is also very sensitive to the material composition and shape of the asteroid. In a word, all the deflection methods discussed above are dependent on the structure ormaterial composition or shape or self-rotation of the asteroid. Lu and Love (2005) proposes the gravitational tractor concept, since the gravity tractor nevermakes physical contact with the asteroid, the asteroid’s composition, structure, spin rate have less influences on the mission compared with other methods. Nor would it require new technology, since ion engines have already been used on a number of spacecraft, such as Deep Space 1. However, the spacecraft thruster should be canted to keep the exhaust plume from the asteroid surface, which would reduce the efficiency of the tractor because the net towing force is reduced. To cancel the restriction of exhaust plume, McInnes (2007) considers placing the tractor on a displaced orbit, and all the propellant can be utilized as long as the radius of the displaced orbit is larger than that of the asteroid. The results show that a 20-tonne gravitational tractor hovering for 1 year can deflect a typical asteroid of about 200m diameter given a lead time of roughly 20 years. Deflecting a larger asteroid would require a heavier spacecraft, or more time spent hovering, or more lead time. For a long time thrusting, the tractor needs plenty of propellant to hover above the asteroid. About 7 ton propellant is required for a year hovering with the specific impulse of 450 s and thrust of 1N. The mass reduces to about 1 ton if the specific impulse of the propellant is 3,000 s. For deflections of larger asteroids, the mass requirement will exceed present launch capacity for a single tractor, especially for urgent deflection mission. The

formation flying gravitational tractor that handles a swarm of several small spacecraft or solar sails can provide a possible solution for large asteroids. Solar sail with specific impulse tending to infinite in theory can hover for a time as long as the life span of the sail. Wie (2007) discusses the orbital deflection of Apophis using a solar sail gravitational tractor. The gravity of the asteroid is cancelled by the solar radiation pressure force and only the attitude control of sail is required, which consumes about several kilograms propellant a year. The weakness of gravitational tractor is the relatively low efficiency compared with the nuclear explosion. Consequently, gravitational tractor is a method that needs more lead time or larger mass but is less dependent on characteristics of the asteroid. InWie’s presentation on the first solar sailing symposium, an advanced concept, tethered solar sail, that has the similar thought as the space tow proposed by Greschik (2006) and Greschik and Edward (2007) is proposed to increase the deflection capability. The space tow has many advantages over regular solar sail, but it also faces new challenges such as attitude control. SSFFGT (formation flying solar sail gravitational tractor) around the asteroid combining a swarm of solar sails is a good option to deflect large asteroid or increase the orbital deflection. Solar sail formation flying around displaced solar orbit and planetary displaced orbit has been investigated in Gong et al. (2007a, b, c). The dynamics and control of the relative motion around the asteroid are similar, but different from those of the 123 162 S. Gong et al. Earth-centered displaced orbit because the gravity field is much weaker and the relative distance ismuch smaller. Collision avoidance is a key issue for the SSFFGT around the asteroid. Equilibrium shaping was an algorithm originally used to automatically assemble collective robotics. Only relative measurements but no mutual communications are needed to guide the individual to avoid collisions. The theory and the applications of the algorithm to satellite swarm are presented in Gazi (2003), Gazi and Passino (2004), and Izzo and Pettazzi (2007), respectively. Broschart and

Solar sails heat the surface off Aphophis and divert it from a collision courseGlister 11. (2/1/11. Paul, author of Centauri Dreams: Imagining and Planning Interstellar Exploration and writer about technology for 20 years.. “NEO Deflection: All the Myriad Ways” http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=16611The asteroid Apophis is extremely unlikely to hit the Earth any time soon, but we do know that it’s slated to make two close passes, closing to a distance of 36,000 kilometers or so in 2029 and again in 2036. These events should give us pause — this is an object some 335 meters in diameter weighing an estimated 25 million tons. It’s 90 stories tall, if you like to think in skyscraper terms, which is what Greg Matloff probably likes to do, given that the physicist and asteroid deflection expert works at New York City College of Technology (City Tech). Of Apophis, Matloff says, “We don’t always know this far ahead of time that they’re coming, but an Apophis impact is very unlikely.” A good thing, too, for a strike by an object of this size would be catastrophic. This City Tech news release offers a look at Matloff’s ideas on what to do if we find a Near-Earth Object on a collision course. He’s a proponent of diverting rather than destroying such objects because of the potential for debris striking the Earth after an explosion. Asteroid Deflection the Slow Way Wouldn’t we need a huge nuclear explosion to divert an asteroid’s trajectory in the first place? Not necessarily. Matloff worked with a team from Marshall Space Flight Center (Huntsville, AL) in 2007 to study methods for deflecting NEOs, finding that heating the surface could alter an object’s trajectory. That heating project is another potential use for the solar sail technologies Matloff has been investigating for the past thirty years, going back to the days of a seminal paper in interstellar studies (written with Eugene Mallove) called “Solar Sail Starships: Clipper Ships of the Galaxy,” which appeared back in 1981 in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. But when it comes to asteroids, solar sails play a different role than leading humanity’s push to the stars. The idea is to configure twin solar sails to act as

UMich 7 Week Seniors 38Solar Sails Affconcentrators of sunlight. Imagine a highly reflective sail that faces the Sun, focusing solar photons on a smaller thruster sail. Both sails would be stationed alongside a Near-Earth Object, with the thruster sail focusing sunlight on its surface. In his book Paradise Regained: The Regreening of Earth (with Les Johnson and C. Bangs), Matloff notes the result: [The] thruster directs a concentrated sunbeam on the NEO’s surface. If the NEO is coated with layers of dust, soil, or ice, a jet of superheated material (like a comet’s tail) may be raised in the direction of the thruster sail. The reaction force to this jet pushed the NEO in the opposite direction. The potential is to create a jet stream of sufficient strength that, over time, it would nudge the NEO into a different trajectory. Creating a steerable jet involves penetrating the object’s surface with photons, but by just the right amount to create the deflection. According to Matloff, it could be as little as a tenth of a millimeter. Probing an Asteroidal Surface Here the need for missions to one or more NEOs again comes into focus, but while we wait for the development of the necessary tools and funding, Matloff and colleagues at City Tech are working with red and green lasers to study how deeply they penetrate asteroidal rock, using meteorite samples from the Allende meteorite that fell in Mexico in 1969. Their first results were presented at the recent gathering of the Meteoritical Society, which met in New York last July. “To my knowledge,” says Matloff, “this is the first experimental measurement of the optical transmission of asteroid samples.” And given the significance of the work, we can assume it won’t be the last. We won’t know whether creating a jet stream by long and slow application of light reflected off a solar sail will work on an actual object without analyzing a wide variety of Near-Earth Objects. And that raises the question of how to proceed. The City Tech story quotes Matloff on the matter: “At present, a debate is underway between American and Russian space agencies regarding Apophis. The Russians believe that we should schedule a mission to this object probably before the first bypass because Earth-produced gravitational effects during that initial pass could conceivably alter the trajectory and properties of the object. On the other hand, Americans generally believe that while an Apophis impact is very unlikely on either pass, we should conduct experiments on an asteroid that runs no risk of ever threatening our home planet.” In any case, further City Tech work by physicist Lufeng Leng has shown through scans of the Allende sample that the composition of the surface material through which the light passes governs the depth of the light’s reach. The results show that lasers from a space vehicle placed near an NEO can help us understand its composition, allowing subsequent sail missions to focus solar photons with the precision needed to create the trajectory-bending jet stream. It’s an ingenious use for solar sails, but we’d better be sure we understand the objects we’re heating well enough to ensure a successful result.

Solar sails can alter the course of the asteroid ApophisHsu, 10. (12/27/10. Jeremy—writer for Fox News. “Could Solar Sails Save US From Dangerous Asteroids?” http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/27/solar-sails-save-asteroids/)A flotilla of solar sail spacecraft could change the course of the asteroid Apophis -- which is headed a little too close to Earth for comfort -- by shading the space rock from solar radiation, according to a French researcher. Such a plan could help shift Apophis into a slightly safer orbit by the time it is expected to swing by Earth on April 13, 2036. But experts have warned previously that any efforts to divert the space rock could actually make matters worse. The preliminary concept idea was proposed at a symposium on solar sails – which are spacecraft powered by sunlight pushing against a sail -- a few months ago at the New York City College of Technology in Brooklyn. "Apophis is a nice target for launching this kind of mission for 20 years from now; not too far, not too close," said Jean-Yves Prado, an engineer at the National Center for Space Study (CNES) in France. How to move a space rock A group of formation-flying solar sails could alter the asteroid's course by eliminating the so-called Yarkovsky effect, a phenomenon described by Russian engineer I.O. Yarkovsky a century ago. That effect occurs when the sun warms an asteroid more on the sun-facing side than the far side. The rock then emits more thermal radiation on its near side, which creates a bit of thrust and changes its momentum slightly. "It's really a very small effect and doesn't apply to very small asteroids because the temperature would be quite negligible, so thrust is negligible," Prado explained. "It also does not apply to very large asteroids because they are too heavy."

UMich 7 Week Seniors 39Solar Sails AffBut for Apophis, which falls just in the middle of that mass range, the effect could make a difference. The proposed mission would deploy four 441-pound (200 kg) solar sails from a transfer module that used solar electric propulsion to reach Apophis. Previous spacecraft that have used solar electric propulsion include NASA's Deep Space 1 and Dawn probes. Once deployed, the solar sails would hover a few kilometers above the space rock and fly in formation according to master control by the transfer module, without a direct link between Earth and the individual sails. The module could also position itself as a small gravity tractor to provide a small gravitational push on Apophis, Prado suggested.

SOLVES YARKOWSKY EFFECTSolar sails would eliminate the Yarkowsky effect and avoid any crash—this would alter the course of an asteroidDillow 10(Clay-- researcher at Popular Science magazine and Master’s of Journalism from Northwestern, “Solar Sail Arrays Could Be Used to Divert Incoming Asteroids by Shading Them From the Sun”, Popular Science, 12/22/10, http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-12/solar-sails-could-divert-asteroids-shading-them-sun)

Most asteroid diversion schemes tend to involve some kind of impact – an explosion, a crash, a violent shove – but a French researcher has proposed an intriguing plan to alter the course of the asteroid Apophis before it swings into Earth’s neighborhood in 2036: offer the asteroid some shade. A fleet of solar sail spacecraft could shift Aphophis’s course by simply shielding it from solar radiation, the researcher says. The idea is to eliminate the so-called Yarkovsky effect, a phenomenon that produces a tiny amount of thrust on the warm side of an asteroid (named for Russian engineer I.O. Yarkovsky). As the sun heats one side of the rock it emits more thermal radiation on its near side, which affects the asteroids orbit ever so slightly. Small asteroids emit too little radiation to matter and large asteroids are too big for the effect to move them, but Apophis is in that medium-sized goldilocks range that is just right A group of solar sailing spacecraft flying in formation could get between Apophis and the sun, blocking solar radiation and elimination the Yarkovsky effect, altering Apophis’s orbit significantly over time.

SOLAR SAILS BETTER THAN EXPLOSION-BASED DEFLECTION

Solar Sail Gravitational tractors create a more fail-safe system that ensures asteroid destructionCambier, Garretson, Kaupa 9(Jean-Luc--pHD in Physics @UC Santa Cruz and University of Paris-Orsay, France and leading a research group on advanced propulsion concept at Air Force Research Laboratory, Peter-- National Space Society Board of Directors, and Francis--Managing Director of Orogen Minerals Limited, “Planetary Threats and Defense: Transforming ExtraTerrestrial Dangers into Opportunity”, Oct. 27, 2009, Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Extinction106.html)

The other alternatives consist of "slow-push" methods (Sanchez et al. 2009), some being particularly attractive because of the low mass and potentially low cost (less of an issue if an impact is predicted with sufficient accuracy). The gravity tractor (Lu and Love 2005) is an option that provides a very weak force and yet the spacecraft mass must be large – first because the force applied on the NEO scales with the spacecraft mass, and because propellant mass is large due to continuous thrusting. Careful positioning of the tractors (Wie 2008b) can be achieved to optimize performance – and provides some redundancy to protect against failure - but the scheme appears to offer little advantages over other slow-push methods. A potentially attractive variation on the concept is a solar-sail gravity tractor (Wie 2007). Solar sails as propulsion systems can also double as solar concentrators for the deflection; the appropriate technology still needs to be developed and tested and considerable time is required to complete the mission, but this approach could be a natural extension of a systematic NEO characterization campaign that sends probes to multiple

UMich 7 Week Seniors 40Solar Sails Afftargets. A solar concentrator and NEO vaporization would also seem particularly attractive since the NEO itself provides the propellant mass, and there is little on-board power required. If the technology to deploy very large structures such as solar-sails exists, one could also consider tethers that hook on the NEO (Chobotov & Melamed 2007) or even "nets", especially useful for rubble piles.

SOLAR SAILS KEY TO FAST/EFFICIENT SPACE EXPLORATION

Solar Sails are the only way for fast missions – solar photonic assistLeipold, et. al, 6 – Ph.D, works for Kayser-Threde, a German space corporation (2006, Dr. Manfred Leipold, M. Leipold , H. Fichtner , B. Heber , P. Groepper , S. Lascar , F. Burger , M. Eiden, T. Niederstadt, C. Sickinger, L. Herbeck, B. Dachwald, W. Seboldt, “HELIOPAUSE EXPLORER – A SAILCRAFT MISSION TO THE OUTER BOUNDARIES OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM”, http://www.zaehringer.de/puplications/IHP_Heliopause%20Explorer.pdf)

Solar sail technology holds the promise of enhancing the interplanetary transportation infrastructure for low-cost space exploration missions in the new millennium, by exploiting the freely available, space-pervading resource of solar radiation pressure for primary propulsion. Despite the large distances to the Sun and the reduced solar radiation pressure, fast missions to the outer edge of our solar system belong to the promising mission applications of solar sails. In order to realize such a mission, the sailcraft would first perform a so-called “solar photonic assist”, approaching the Sun to less than 0.3AU thus exploiting the increased solar radiation pressure, to pick up enough orbital energy to enter a hyperbolic orbit. This concept has been extended to a double and triple solar approach which reduces the requirement for very high area-to-mass ratios of the sailcraft. The target distance of the Heliopause Explorer mission is set to 200AU. The science objective was defined as to allow the Heliopause Explorer to perform in-situ observations which can not be obtained within the remaining life time of the two Voyager spacecraft. A first feasibility study was initiated to derive technology requirements for the realization of such a challenging deep space mission.

SOLAR SAILS KEY TO DEEP SPACE EXPLORATIONSolar sails can travel to the outer edges of the solar systemPatel, 10 (9/2/10. Peter—writer for Astrobiology Magazine. “Solar Sail Spacecraft could explore beyond solar system” Space.com. http://www.space.com/9051-solar-sail-spacecraft-explore-solar-system.html)Sail-propelled spacecraft could be used to monitor Earth or hover close to the sun to study solar storms and flares, scientists say. They also could be used to adjust the orbits of satellites circling the Earth. But their true potential may lie farther away: Experts believe solar sails are the best propulsion system for exploring the outer edges of the solar system and someday other stars. That is because unlike rockets, these spacecraft don’t require fuel and they gain speed constantly as long as light hits them. Potentially, solar sails can move spacecraft much faster than a rocket engine could. "If you want to go really quickly to the outer edge of the solar system you’d want to use a solar sail," said Les Johnson, deputy manager of the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center. "A chemical system [such as] a rocket would run out of gas long before you get there. With solar sails, as long as you’ve got the sun you can keep going.?” Today’s solar sails are typically made of aluminum-coated

***SPACE COLONIZATION EXT

UMich 7 Week Seniors 41Solar Sails Affplastic films only a fraction as thick as a trash bag. Other lightweight materials such as aluminum oxide or carbon fiber are also being tested. To capture as much pressure from sunlight as possible, sails need to be big. The Planetary Society?s Cosmos-1 prototype sail, which did not reach orbit due to a rocket failure, had a surface area of 6,500 square feet (600 square meters), about 1 1/2 the size of a basketball court. Going to the fringes of the solar system would require very large sails. Johnson imagines next-generation sails would have to be hundreds of meters on a side. They would be deployed close to the sun to gain thrust and build up immense speed so they could coast the rest of the way through the solar system. In three years, a solar sail could reach speeds of 150,000 mph (240,000 kph), scientists estimate.  At that speed, it could reach Pluto in less than five years. It took NASA’s Voyager spacecraft over 12 years to reach a similar distance. The latest spacecraft to head toward Pluto, NASA’s New Horizons mission, will take nine years to reach its destination using a combination of rocket propulsion and gravity-assist maneuvers. Friedman believes that a sail-propelled spacecraft for exploring the Kuiper Belt region of space rocks on the fringe of the solar system is possible within the next 10 years. But beyond the orbit of Jupiter, the energy from sunlight gets too weak to keep sails accelerating, so to go beyond our solar system, a craft could need added thrust. For that, he says, light could be provided by a solar-powered laser placed in orbit around the sun at a mid-point within the solar system.

SOLAR SAILS KEY TO COLONIZATIONSolar sails make colonization economically feasibleGrossman, 2k – freelance writer who has written for the LA Times and CalTech (2000, Joel Grossman, Engineering and Science at CalTech, “Solar Sailing: The Next Big Space Craze?”, vol. 4)

And solar sails could be a boon to planetary exploration. Mercury could be better studied from a sun-synchronous orbit about the planet, for example, which a solar sail would make feasible. Solar sails could also be useful for asteroid rendezvous, and for reducing the travel time needed to explore the outer planets and their many moons— a particular benefit in the case of sample-return missions. And the cost of transporting large amounts of cargo and equipment between Earth and, for instance, Mars to establish a permanent human presence could be so dramatically reduced that it would become practical financially.

Solar Sails would make terraforming other planets and the moon possibleRoy, Kennedy, and Fields 10(Ken-- engineer working in Oak Ridge, Robert--president of the Ultimax Group Inc and Congressional Fellow on House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space, and David-- NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador, “Mitigating Global Warming”, Utlimax Group Inc, Springerlink)

Earlier we mentioned other worlds and other places. For example, if we wanted to reduce the solar radiation hitting our neighbor Venus to levels that are normal on Earth, as opposed to the venuforming of Terra, which seems to be going on right now, we would need to block about half (48 percent exactly) of the incoming sunlight. This can also be done using Dyson dots located at the sun-Venus L1 point, but the level of effort would be approximately 200 times as great as that required to address the global warming problem right here on Earth. We recognize that the terraforming of Venus would involve much more

UMich 7 Week Seniors 42Solar Sails Affthan just adjusting its solar constant, but that task would have to be part of the overall terraforming effort. If we were terraforming Mars, on the other hand, we would do just the inverse—double the Martian insulation with off-axis dots. Projects like this could take thousands of years without quasi-magic methods like self-replicating nanotechnology. Nevertheless, how much would a second Earth in this Solar System be worth to the human race? Survival trumps the ordinary calculus of economics.

Solar Sails have the potential to be the workhorse for interplanetary travelGilchrist 05 – B.S. in Business Administration from California State Polytechnic University and an MBA in taxation from Golden Gate University (Jim, “Setting Sail for Outer Space is No Pipe Dream,” The Scotsman, 5/14/05, lexisnexis)

THE CONCEPT of solar "sails" - giant, reflective panels harnessing the sun's rays for interplanetary and even interstellar propulsion - has long been the stuff of science fiction. Within the next few weeks, however, the feasibility of "space clippers", using sunlight to ride the spaceways, will be put to the test, when a Russian submarine in the Barents Sea launches Cosmos 1, the first solar-sail spacecraft.Cosmos 1 is also the first international, privately funded space mission and is being carried out by the Pasadena-based Planetary Society, the world's largest grassroots space interest organisation, in conjunction with Russia's Space Research Institute and NPO Lavochkin in Moscow, which has built the unmanned space vehicle. After several postponements, it is now expected to take off within a month, with a launch date to be announced within days.Carried into orbit 800km above the earth by a Volna rocket - a converted Soviet missile - Cosmos 1 will inflate tubes to unfurl eight 15-metre-long, triangular mylar sails in a giant windmill configuration, giving a total sail area of 600 sq metres. These sails are expected to gradually raise the craft's orbit, as they catch light particles. The vehicle will be visible to the naked eye as it circles the world, its sails reflecting sunlight. The sails are expected to start deteriorating within a month and it remains to be seen whether the vehicle stays in orbit indefinitely or burns up on re-entry.Ground tests or simulations can offer no clue as to how the spacecraft will behave once the massive, but ultra-thin, sail area is deployed, says Dr Louis Friedman, project director and a co-founder of the Planetary Society with the late Carl Sagan, the visionary astronomer and author. "We don't know how the vehicle will behave dynamically in weightless conditions and in a vacuum," says Friedman. "It could oscillate, even rip apart; or it could spread wide and sail effortlessly on these beams of light, as we hope it will."Last year, a Japanese rocket succeeded in unfurling two space sails, although they didn't go into orbit. The Planetary Society attempted a similar experiment in 2001, but the payload failed to separate from the rocket.Contrary to common belief, space sails do not harness the "solar wind", which flows from the sun but exerts very little force. Propulsion comes from the pressure of photons (light particles) from the sun (or, conceivably, from an artificial, satellite-mounted laser source). Compared to a conventional rocket, a solar-sail craft will accelerate very slowly at first, but will continue up to the kind of speeds which, some specialists argue, might some day offer a means of interstellar travel.Cosmos 1 has cost dollars 4 million - bargain-basement prices in astronautical terms - by resorting to cut-price technology such as the former Soviet missile as carrier and the submarine launch. The main financier is Cosmos Studios, the science-based entertainment corporation whose chief executive is Sagan's widow and former collaborator Ann Druyan.Asked how he feels now that this project is reaching its climax, Friedman replies: "A crazy mix of sweaty palms from nervousness and pride that we have made it to countdown. Space is not about the 100,000 things you do right but about the one that you do wrong. "He visualises solar-sail technology as providing "a workhorse for going back and forth to the planets", adding: "We would like to advance a mission that could fly into interplanetary space and perhaps experiment with space-based searches for extraterrestrial intelligence."

SOLAR SAILS KEY TO MARS COLONIZATION Solar sails make Mars access practical and reduce launch costs—best option availableMcInnes, 3 – Professor of Space Systems Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow (December 2003, Colin McInnes, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, “Solar Sailing: Mission Applications and Engineering Challenges”, Vol. 361, No. 1813, JSTOR)

UMich 7 Week Seniors 43Solar Sails AffOther inner-Solar System missions, such the delivery of payloads to Mercury, offer quite spectacular opportunities. A ballistic transfer to Mercury using conventional chemical propulsion requires an extremely large Av (accumulated change in velocity) of the order of 13 km s-1, although this can be reduced using gravity assists at the expense of increased mission duration (ca. 5 yr for the NASA MESSENGER mission). A solar sail with a large payload mass fraction and a characteristic acceleration of 0.25 mm s-2 will deliver a payload to Mercury in 3.5 yr, while a solar sail with double the performance will require only 1.5 yr (Leipold et al. 1995). These inner-Solar System missions then make optimum use of solar sailing by using solar light pressure to enable extremely high-energy missions. For payload delivery to Mars, outward spiral times tend to be somewhat longer than those for ballistic transfers. However, solar sailing is not constrained by the waiting period between ballistic launch opportunities. Again, for a characteristic acceleration of 1 mm s-2, the trip time to Mars is of the order of 400 d, with an additional 100 d required for capture to an initial highly elliptical orbit and the subsequent inward spiral to a low planetary orbit. While solar sails can in principle deliver a larger payload mass fraction than that possible by chemical propulsion, one-way Mars missions do not make optimum use of solar sailing, since the required Av is relatively modest. Although one-way Mars missions do not appear attractive, two-way sample-return missions do provide opportunities. For a ballistic mission, the mass delivered to Mars must include propellant for the return leg of the trip. For a solar-sail mission, however, propellant is only required for a lander to descend to and ascend from the Martian surface. Therefore, solar sailing can be used to reduce launch mass, and hence mission costs, for such sample-return missions. Other inner-Solar System missions for the more distant future include the use of large solar sails to reduce the total mass to low Earth orbit, and so total cost, required for the human exploration of Mars. A solar sail with a large payload mass fraction and low characteristic acceleration can deliver logistics supplies which are not time critical to Mars. For example, a large 2 km x 2 km solar sail of mass 19 200 kg can deliver a 32 000 kg payload to Mars orbit in 4.2 yr from an initial Earth parking orbit. The solar sail can then return to Earth in 2 yr to be loaded with another payload for delivery to Mars. This appears to be the largest solar sail which could be reasonably delivered to Earth orbit in a single launch using the Space Shuttle, or a large expendable vehicle such as Titan IV (McInnes et al. 2002).

Solar sails make Mars access practical and reduce launch costs—best option availableMcInnes, 3 – Professor of Space Systems Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow (December 2003, Colin McInnes, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, “Solar Sailing: Mission Applications and Engineering Challenges”, Vol. 361, No. 1813, JSTOR)

Other inner-Solar System missions, such the delivery of payloads to Mercury, offer quite spectacular opportunities. A ballistic transfer to Mercury using conventional chemical propulsion requires an extremely large Av (accumulated change in velocity) of the order of 13 km s-1, although this can be reduced using gravity assists at the expense of increased mission duration (ca. 5 yr for the NASA MESSENGER mission). A solar sail with a large payload mass fraction and a characteristic acceleration of 0.25 mm s-2 will deliver a payload to Mercury in 3.5 yr, while a solar sail with double the performance will require only 1.5 yr (Leipold et al. 1995). These inner-Solar System missions then make optimum use of solar sailing by using solar light pressure to enable extremely high-energy missions. For payload delivery to Mars, outward spiral times tend to be somewhat longer than those for ballistic transfers. However, solar sailing is not constrained by the waiting period between ballistic launch opportunities. Again, for a characteristic acceleration of 1 mm s-2, the trip time to Mars is of the order of 400 d, with an additional 100 d required for capture to an initial highly elliptical orbit and the subsequent inward spiral to a low planetary orbit. While solar sails can in principle deliver a larger payload mass fraction than that possible by chemical propulsion, one-way Mars missions do not make optimum use of solar sailing, since the required Av is relatively modest. Although one-way Mars missions do not appear attractive, two-way sample-return missions do provide opportunities. For a ballistic mission, the mass delivered to Mars must include propellant for the return leg of the trip. For a solar-sail mission, however, propellant is only required for a lander to descend to and ascend from the Martian surface. Therefore, solar sailing can be used to reduce launch mass, and hence mission costs, for such sample-return missions. Other inner-Solar System missions for the more distant future include the use of large solar sails to reduce the total mass to low Earth orbit, and so

UMich 7 Week Seniors 44Solar Sails Afftotal cost, required for the human exploration of Mars. A solar sail with a large payload mass fraction and low characteristic acceleration can deliver logistics supplies which are not time critical to Mars. For example, a large 2 km x 2 km solar sail of mass 19 200 kg can deliver a 32 000 kg payload to Mars orbit in 4.2 yr from an initial Earth parking orbit. The solar sail can then return to Earth in 2 yr to be loaded with another payload for delivery to Mars. This appears to be the largest solar sail which could be reasonably delivered to Earth orbit in a single launch using the Space Shuttle, or a large expendable vehicle such as Titan IV (McInnes et al. 2002).

Solar sails are the only technology that solves this - can get to Mars in one monthNew Scientist 5 (New Science Magazine Online, “Get to Mars in a month with a solar super-sail”, Academic OneFile, 2005)

A LICK of paint could help a spacecraft powered by a solar sail get from Earth to Mars in just one month, seven times faster than the craft that took the rovers Spirit and Opportunity to the Red Planet. Gregory Benford of the University of California, Irvine, and his brother James, who runs aerospace research firm Microwave Sciences in Lafayette, California, envisage beaming microwave energy up from Earth to boil off volatile molecules from a specially formulated paint applied to the sail. The recoil of the molecules as they streamed off the sail would give it a significant kick that would help the craft on its way. "It's a different way of thinking about propulsion," Gregory Benford says. "We leave the engine on the ground." Solar sails are in essence nothing more than giant mirrors. Photons of light from the sun bounce off the surface, giving the sail a gentle push. It was while developing a solar sail five years ago that the brothers stumbled upon their idea for enhancing the effect. The pair were testing a very thin carbon-mesh sail by firing microwaves at it. To their surprise, the sail experienced a force several times stronger than they expected. They eventually worked out that the heat from the microwave beam was causing carbon monoxide gas to escape from the sail's surface, and that the recoil from the emerging gas molecules was giving the sail an extra push. In a forthcoming issue of the journal Acta Astronautica, the Benfords explain how a sail covered with a paint designed to emit gas when it is heated might propel a spacecraft to Mars in just a month. A rocket would take the craft to low-Earth orbit, 300 kilometres up. After the craft unfurls a solar sail 100 metres across, a transmitter on Earth would fire microwaves at it to heat it up. The Benfords calculate a one-hour burst of microwaves could accelerate the craft to 60 kilometres per second, faster than any interplanetary spacecraft to date. The feat would require a 60-megawatt microwave beam with a similar diameter to the sail. It would also have to be capable of tracking the craft as it accelerated away. But this power level could not be delivered by any existing microwave transmission system. The deep-space communications network that NASA uses to communicate with Mars rovers and the Cassini probe now orbiting Saturn can only manage half a megawatt. The Benfords say the power could be ramped up in future and hope to persuade NASA to consider doing this as part of a future upgrade to the network

Reduces cost of Mars samplingVulpetti, et. al, 7 – Ph.D, member of he International Academy of Astronautics, Associate Fellow of AIAA, and Member of the Planetary Society(2007, Giovanni Vulpetti, Les Johnson, and Gregory Matloff, Solar sails : a novel approach to interplanetary travel, p. 91-110)

Comet Rendezvous All the major planets and most asteroids circle the Sun in or near the same plane that Earth does—called the ecliptic. The constellations of the Zodiac are arrayed along the ecliptic track on the celestial sphere. Comets, on the other hand, are all distant from the ecliptic. It is very difficult to visit a comet at an arbitrary point of its orbit, because of the very high energy required to shift orbital inclination to match that of the comet. But given months or years, a solar sail in the inner solar system can perform such an inclination-cranking maneuver without the expenditure of an on-board propellant. It's true that the current, conventionally propelled probes have visited the vicinity of a few comets, but these were short-term flybys (or in some cases fly-throughs) in which the probe traveled past the comet at relative velocities of 50 kilometers per second or more. A sail-propelled probe could utilize solar radiation pressure to match orbits with a comet and cruise in formation with that celestial object for weeks or months. Samples of comet material could be gathered for later return to Earth. Particle Acceleration Solar Orbiter The Particle Acceleration Solar Orbiter would allow

UMich 7 Week Seniors 45Solar Sails Affclose-up imaging (<0.2 AU) and spectroscopic analysis of high-energy solar flares to determine their composition, development, and acceleration mechanisms. Seeing the life cycle of a flare event from close solar orbit will significantly advance our understanding of these events. Mars Sample Return Returning a sample from Mars has long been a goal for scientists interested in learning more about the possible development of life beyond Earth. Unfortunately, the complexity and associated high cost with performing this mission seem to push it indefinitely into the future. One aspect of the problem is the fuel required for the return trip to Earth. Getting a spacecraft to Mars requires a large, dedicated launch vehicle. Any sample return mission would have to also include a rocket landed on the surface of Mars to return the sample from the surface back into space. Once back in space, the sample would then have to be transported to Earth. To do this chemically would require multiple rocket launches. We simply cannot launch at one time enough fuel to get our spacecraft into orbit for the Mars ascent rocket, and the propellant required for returning to Earth. If the mass required for any leg of the trip can be significantly reduced, the cost of the mission would decrease, making it more likely to happen. Solar sails provide a lightweight option for returning the sample from Mars to Earth. The scenario might go something like this: (1) A rocket launches the mission spacecraft from Earth, (2) The spacecraft enters Martian orbit, sending a lander to the surface, (3) The lander collects the sample of interest and sends it back to space using a rocket that accompanied it to the surface, (4) The rocket has a rendezvous with a solar-sail-propelled craft in Martian orbit, transferring the sample, (5) The sailcraft returns the sample to some parking orbit about Earth, (6) An orbital transfer vehicle moves the sample to the future space station. (Alternatively, the sailcraft could return the sample to the lunar base.) In this scenario, the lightweight solar sailcraft replaces the heavy chemical propulsion stage that would otherwise be required to return the sample to Earth for analysis.

MARS COLONIZATION KEY TO SURVIVAL Status quo attempts to colonize the Moon are insufficient—we must reach Mars in order to access multiple untapped resources that allow survivalZubrin 96, Robert, former Chairman of the National Space Society, and President of the Mars Society, Ad Astra, “The Case for Colonizing Mars,” July/August, <http://nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html>

Among extraterrestrial bodies in our solar system, Mars is singular in that it possesses all the raw materials required to support not only life, but a new branch of human civilization. This uniqueness is illustrated most clearly if we contrast Mars with the Earth's Moon, the most frequently cited alternative location for extraterrestrial human colonization. In contrast to the Moon, Mars is rich in carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, all in biologically readily accessible forms such as carbon dioxide gas, nitrogen gas, and water ice and permafrost. Carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen are only present on the Moon in parts per million quantities, much like gold in seawater. Oxygen is abundant on the Moon, but only in tightly bound oxides such as silicon dioxide (SiO2), ferrous oxide (Fe2O3), magnesium oxide (MgO), and aluminum oxide (Al2O3), which require very high energy processes to reduce. Current knowledge indicates that if Mars were smooth and all its ice and permafrost melted into liquid water, the entire planet would be covered with an ocean over 100 meters deep. This contrasts strongly with the Moon, which is so dry that if concrete were found there, Lunar colonists would mine it to get the water out. Thus, if plants could be grown in greenhouses on the Moon (an unlikely proposition, as we've seen) most of their biomass material would have to be imported. The Moon is also deficient in about half the metals of interest to industrial society (copper, for example), as well as many other elements of interest such as sulfur and phosphorus. Mars has every required element in abundance. Moreover, on Mars, as on Earth, hydrologic and volcanic processes have occurred that are likely to have consolidated various elements into local concentrations of high-grade mineral ore. Indeed, the geologic history of Mars has been compared to that of Africa, with very optimistic inferences as to its mineral wealth implied as a corollary. In contrast, the Moon has had virtually no history of water or volcanic action, with the result that it is basically composed of trash rocks with very little differentiation into ores that represent useful concentrations of anything interesting. You can generate power on either the Moon or Mars with solar panels, and here the advantages of the Moon's clearer skies and closer proximity to the Sun than Mars roughly balances the disadvantage of large energy storage requirements created by the Moon's 28-day light-dark cycle. But if you wish to manufacture solar panels, so as to create a self-expanding power base, Mars holds an enormous advantage, as only Mars possesses the large supplies of carbon and hydrogen needed to produce the pure silicon required for producing photovoltaic panels and other electronics. In addition, Mars has the potential for wind-

UMich 7 Week Seniors 46Solar Sails Affgenerated power while the Moon clearly does not. But both solar and wind offer relatively modest power potential — tens or at most hundreds of kilowatts here or there. To create a vibrant civilization you need a richer power base, and this Mars has both in the short and medium term in the form of its geothermal power resources, which offer potential for large numbers of locally created electricity generating stations in the 10 MW (10,000 kilowatt) class. In the long-term, Mars will enjoy a power-rich economy based upon exploitation of its large domestic resources of deuterium fuel for fusion reactors. Deuterium is five times more common on Mars than it is on Earth, and tens of thousands of times more common on Mars than on the Moon. But the biggest problem with the Moon, as with all other airless planetary bodies and proposed artificial free-space colonies, is that sunlight is not available in a form useful for growing crops. A single acre of plants on Earth requires four megawatts of sunlight power, a square kilometer needs 1,000 MW. The entire world put together does not produce enough electrical power to illuminate the farms of the state of Rhode Island, that agricultural giant. Growing crops with electrically generated light is just economically hopeless. But you can't use natural sunlight on the Moon or any other airless body in space unless you put walls on the greenhouse thick enough to shield out solar flares, a requirement that enormously increases the expense of creating cropland. Even if you did that, it wouldn't do you any good on the Moon, because plants won't grow in a light/dark cycle lasting 28 days. But on Mars there is an atmosphere thick enough to protect crops grown on the surface from solar flare. Therefore, thin-walled inflatable plastic greenhouses protected by unpressurized UV-resistant hard-plastic shield domes can be used to rapidly create cropland on the surface. Even without the problems of solar flares and month-long diurnal cycle, such simple greenhouses would be impractical on the Moon as they would create unbearably high temperatures. On Mars, in contrast, the strong greenhouse effect created by such domes would be precisely what is necessary to produce a temperate climate inside. Such domes up to 50 meters in diameter are light enough to be transported from Earth initially, and later on they can be manufactured on Mars out of indigenous materials. Because all the resources to make plastics exist on Mars, networks of such 50- to 100-meter domes couldbe rapidly manufactured and deployed, opening up large areas of the surface to both shirtsleeve human habitation and agriculture. That's just the beginning, because it will eventually be possible for humans to substantially thicken Mars' atmosphere by forcing the regolith to outgas its contents through a deliberate program of artificially induced global warming. Once that has been accomplished, the habitation domes could be virtually any size, as they would not have to sustain a pressure differential between their interior and exterior. In fact, once that has been done, it will be possible to raise specially bred crops outside the domes. The point to be made is that unlike colonists on any known extraterrestrial body, Martian colonists will be able to live on the surface, not in tunnels, and move about freely and grow crops in the light of day. Mars is a place where humans can live and multiply to large numbers, supporting themselves with products of every description made out of indigenous materials. Mars is thus a place where an actual civilization, not just a mining or scientific outpost, can be developed. And significantly for interplanetary commerce, Mars and Earth are the only two locations in the solar system where humans will be able to grow crops for export.

MORAL OBLIGATION TO COLONIZE SPACEWe have a moral obligation to the human race to sustain life and get off the rock, this supercedes all impact obligationPinkerton 06 (James, A graduate of Stanford University, he served on the White House staff under both Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; 6-27-06; “The Ultimate Lifeboat” TCS Daily – a publication of tech central station, <http://research.lifeboat.com/ tcs.htm)

But there's one huge problem: No matter how far we go, virtually, we haven't actually gone anywhere, physically. Our corporeal selves are still here on earth, still vulnerable to whatever fate befalls the earth. All those cyber-savvy yuppies in the World Trade Center had their cell phones and Blackberries with them on 9-11, and those machines worked fine, even unto the end. But the vaunted products of the Digital Revolution couldn't save those poor high-techsters from the grim-reaping reality of the massed kinetics of fiery fuel. And that's the point about the earth, too. If it goes, we go. And so we should go elsewhere, so that when the earth goes, we have another place to go. And while we're at it, we should take our pets and plants, too. We wouldn't want to be without them, just as they wouldn't want to be without us -- even if they don't know it. It's our job to know things, and to act accordingly. And if we fail at that mission, then we really will have failed in upholding our end of the Burkean bargain --

UMich 7 Week Seniors 47Solar Sails Affthat is, partnering not only with the living and the dead, but with those who are yet to be born.

SOLAR SAILS KEY TO PANSPERMIASolar Sails are the only craft able to reach high enough speeds, have precise enough targeting, and the ability to slow down near a star which are crucial requirements to spreading PanspermiaBattersby 2/5/11 - visiting senior fellow at the Robens Centre for Public and Environmental Health, University of Surre, President of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (Stephen, “Go Forth and Multiply,” New Scientist, lexis nexis)The idea that simple life forms could be carried from planet to planet, known as panspermia, is an old one. Ever since the 19th century, scientists have been debating whether life could survive the long journeys between star systems. Mautner thinks the process should not be left to chance."I started to become interested in the 1970s, at the height of the cold war and the nuclear arms race, when there were questions about whether we were going to survive," he says. "What if Earth has the only life? Earth will be destroyed eventually, then all life is gone. For me that's a very empty and meaningless universe." The answer, he concluded, is that we should become the agents of panspermia.He is not alone in advocating directed panspermia, as this idea is known. "Expanding the richness of life in the universe is what we ought to be doing," says Chris McKay, an astrobiologist at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. Mautner outlined his ideas for spreading Earth life across the galaxy in a recent paper (Journal of Cosmology, vol 5, p 982). He envisages sending out colony ships filled with microbes and pulled by solar sails. The first solar-sailing craft was launched by Japan's space agency last year, and by Mautner's calculations such craft could reach speeds of up to 150 kilometres a second by swooping close to the sun before unfurling their sails.Where should we send the first microvoyagers? The obvious target is a young, temperate rocky planet similar to Earth, the kind of planet we may soon start to find thanks to NASA's Kepler mission, launched in 2009. A seeding mission could aim to put a spacecraft in orbit within the habitable zone around the host star, from where it could disperse millions of seed capsules, some of which should end up on the target planet.But this would not be easy. Such a distant stellar target would need precise targeting, and more critically, the craft would have to slow down to enter orbit around the target star. It could decelerate by using its solar sail to catch the light of the star, but it is not clear whether this would be possible without an active guidance system, which would have to remain in working order for tens of thousands of years. "I would like to stay away from any far-future technologies if possible," says Mautner.

PANSPERMIA IMPACT Extinction inevitable—its try or die for panspermiaMautner and Matloff 79. (Michael, research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. AND G.L, works in Dept. of Applied Science, New York University “Directed Panspermia: A Technical and Ehtical Evaluation of Seeding Nearby Solar Systems” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.) c. Further Motivations: A Genetic "Noah's Ark"; Manipulation of Natural History; Cosmic Loneliness Engineered panspermia may become especially urgent if a catastrophic development threatening all life, or at last mankind of human civilization, appears imminent. A life system threatened with extinction, or one which perceives itself as such, may desire to perpetuate its genetic heritage by transplanting it to new habitats . Such motives were

UMich 7 Week Seniors 48Solar Sails Affsuggested by Crick and Orgel [5], Sagan and Shkloviskii [16] and others. A threat to the survival of our technological civilization may also suffice to motivate a panspermia project, since advanced technology will be required to escape the ultimate incineration of all terrestrial life by the Sun at its red giant phase .It is generally recognized that current technology has the capacity to effect a global catastrophe; although it is impossible to estimate the actual probability that such a catastrophe will occur. However, the desirability of a panspermia project will be decided upon not on the basis of the actual, but the perceived probability that our civilization, human survival, or life on Earth in general is threatened. The survival time of the current civilization has been estimated in context of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence by several authors [17]. In general, the lifetime of this civilization is perceived as limited, estimates ranging from tens to thousands of years . For example, von Hoerner [18] estimates that an advanced civilization will destroy all higher life on its planet within 30 years with a probability of 60%, and that a catastrophic nuclear war will become more probable than peace after only 45.6 years even if the probability for war in every seven year period is only 10% [19]. Such expectations seem to be widespread; for example, an informal poll by Westman [20] showed that students estimate the longevity of our civilization as 100-200 years. We also conducted an informal survey of 32 young, mostly college-educated subjects. The average perceived probability for the destruction of all life within 500-1000 years through a man-made disaster was 22%, and for the destruction of civilization, 42%. It is hard to assess the level of a perceived threat that would suffice to motivate our civilization to engage in directed panspermia; it would be even harder to assess the reactions of a past extraterrestrial civilization to a perceived threat. Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that in our own civilization the emergence of the technological level which makes panspermia possible generates, simultaneously, a threat that may also make directed panspermia desirable [21]. A further possible motivation for engineered panspermia may be provided by the expectation that it will afford a profound influencing of natural history by human design. Beyond transforming the history of the target ecosphere, the descendants of pansperm evolution - if not our own descendants - may in the long run further spread life in the universe. Via panspermia we may thus ultimately contribute to turning biological activity into a determinant force in the physical evolution of the universe. Finally, the growing perception of the magnitude of the cosmos, and the absence of evidence for extraterrestrial life so far tend to induce a growing sense of our cosmic isolation. White the search for extraterrestrial life may lead to a passive solution, engineered panspermia will provide an active route of escape from the stark implications of cosmic loneliness.

AT: PANSPERMIA FAVORS HUMANSPanspermia promotes and perpetuates all of terrestrial life, not just humans. Mautner and Matloff 79. (Michael, research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. AND G.L, works in Dept. of Applied Science, New York University “Directed Panspermia: A Technical and Ehtical Evaluation of Seeding Nearby Solar Systems” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.) a. Promoting the evolutionary trend to the conquest of new habitats. The primary rationale for engineered panspermia, in our view, is to promote and perpetuate the genetic heritage common to all terrestrial life. This proposition is predicated on the notion that qualities universal to all terrestrial life do exist. In the

UMich 7 Week Seniors 49Solar Sails Affframework of contemporary biochemistry, these unifying qualities may be identified as those patterns of the hereditary and metabolic mechanisms which are shared by all cellular organisms from prokaryotes to man . These fundamental universals of terrestrial life were preserved throughout evolution, and adapted to function in diverse external environments, including extreme conditions of pH, temperature, pressure and water activity. Indeed, the trend to conquer all accessible habitats may be seen as a characteristic manifestation of biological evolution. In this framework, we may propose that the unique human capacities of cognition and manipulation imply a moral obligation on the part of our species towards the totality of terrestrial life. This obligation suggests that technology should be used to promote the conquest of new habitats by living matter, as extensively as our technology permits. Evidently, engineered panspermia will serve this object.

AT: INTERFERES WITH INDIGENOUS LIFEThe risk of encountering alien life is small and can be eliminated by targeting young solar systemsMautner 9. (Michael, research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. “Life-Centered Ethics, And the Human Future in Space” Bioethics.)Seeding other solar systems with life We can soon start expanding life by seeding other solar systems. Human travel to other stars has major obstacles,27 but we can soon start directed panspermia, sending microorganisms to other solar systems to plant the essential patterns of gene/protein life. We can also include eukaryotic organisms, hardy plant spores and the cysts of microscopic animals to start higher evolution.28 Solar sails or seeded comets can launch microbial capsules to nearby stars, or to clusters of new stars in inter- stellar clouds where they can seed many new solar systems.29 Some of this new life may evolve into civiliza- tions that can promote Life further in the galaxy. These directed panspermia missions will be launched easily from space colonies, even by individuals or small groups. Should we proceed? At present there is no scientific evidence for extraterrestrial life. The complexity of even a single cell suggests that the origins of life may be highly improbable and that it may not have occurred elsewhere even on billions of planets. Life on Earth may be unique, and the fate of life is then in our hands . Seeding other planetary systems could prevent the study of pristine space but seeding a few hundred new solar systems will secure and propagate life while leaving hundreds of billions of pristine stars for exploration. Conclusive proofs of extraterrestrial life could be pro- vided by interstellar probes, but at achievable velocities, this would require millions of years. In the absence of such proof, we need to seed other solar systems to assure that life will indeed exist elsewhere in the universe. However, the technology to seed space and, eventually, life itself in this Solar System, have finite durations. Should we accept the certain end of our family of gene/ protein life, in order to avoid a small chance of interfering with putative alien life elsewhere? The chances of interfering with other life-forms can be minimized by targeting young solar systems where life, especially advanced life, would not have yet started . Even if our microbial missions encounter other life, they may merge with local life and generate new biology. In either case, life will benefit. Biotic ethics concerns first our own family of gene/ protein life . If this family of life is unique to Earth, its fate is our hands. Panbiotic ethics can then motivate us to seed other solar systems to secure life, with cosmic consequences.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 50Solar Sails Aff

The chances of injuring native biota are very low and we can limit it by surveying the target and choosing pansperms carefully. At worst we’re just extending evolution into space, which isn’t bad.Mautner and Matloff 79. (Michael, research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. AND G.L, works in Dept. of Applied Science, New York University “Directed Panspermia: A Technical and Ehtical Evaluation of Seeding Nearby Solar Systems” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.) b. Interference with indigenous biotaThe possibility that pansperms will disrupt or destroy an indigenous biosystem presents the most severe argument against engineered panspermia. The possibility of destructive interference with indigenous organisms could be eliminated only by the close range survey of the target; this is far beyond the level of technology considered here. However, we wish to present some arguments which may mitigate this problem. The most tragic outcome of a panspermia mission would be to harm intelligent organisms endowed with self-awareness. This would happen only if these inhabitants have not yet developed the means to eliminate primitive biological invaders . It is likely, however, that the evolution from the inception of consciousness to a complete biological control of the environment should be in general rapid, occupying at most a few million years, as seems to be likely in our case. To encounter a civilization at this brief phase of its evolution, in the near vicinity of our solar systems, must be highly improbably by any estimate. More generally, to cause damage to indigenous organisms by direct infection, their biology must be essentially similar to our own: for example, silicon-based organisms, or even ones using D-amino acids, will be probably unharmed . Interference by competition for food or energy resources is also possible. However, such competition may equally well arise from new species evolving by natural ways in the local biosphere. Moreover, harm to an ecosystem which have evolved photosynthesis may be avoided by selecting as pansperms strictly anaerobic organisms which will be destroyed by exposure to the oxygen atmosphere upon arrival. Thus the nature of the organisms which could be harmed by the pansperms may be confined into relatively narrow limits. If competition between the pansperms and the local biota for vital resources should commence, it will but constitute an interstellar extension of the evolutionary struggle for the survival of the fittest. In this instance, panspermia will have served as a vehicle for the cosmic extension of organic evolution. This eventuality is not necessarily more evil than natural evolution on a local scale.

AT: UNETHICALTheir calls for self extinction are evil: the moral thing is to extend all terrestrial life in everyway possibleMautner 9. (Michael, research Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia. “Life-Centered Ethics, And the Human Future in Space” Bioethics.)By biocentric ethics, actions that secure life are morally good, and actions that threaten life are evil. These prin- ciples are ancient: ‘I put before you good and evil, life and death. . . . choose life’.33 This text identifies life as the essential moral good, and death as evil. So do more recent sources such as Schweitzer,34 and discussions of panbiotic ethics.35 By life-centered ethics, self-extinction is the ultimate evil. By these principles, dangers that threaten all life constitute infinite risk. No finite cause can justify an infinite risk/benefit ratio. Therefore, biotic ethics cannot accept even a small danger to all Life. Conversely, endeavors that secure Life, such as expansion in space, are morally

UMich 7 Week Seniors 51Solar Sails Affimperative. This endeavor will involve large-scale human collaborations, which require justice, peace, compassion, and truth. Human curiosity, ambition, and intelligence are also needed. These values are, therefore, consistent with biotic ethics. Life-centered ethics are consistent with both religious and secular principles. In religious terms, a Creator who formed life will also desire its propagation. For secular ethics, life-centered principles suggest a rationally based human purpose and related moral and social values. Having defined a purpose, can we in fact realize it? Is the future open or pre- determined, and can we control it? We cannot test experimentally if Nature is determin- istic, because we can only observe one path of events that unfolds in time and cannot see if alternative paths are possible. However, lacking scientific proof that we can affect the future, we still make plans and often realize them. Although the future cannot be predicted in detail, we can formulate principles that can guide it. Ultimately, biology will define the possible forms and scope of life, and survival will shape its evolution. These laws made us into a force of life in the universe, and will continue to advance us in the future. Relations between biocentric, biotic and panbiotic ethics Biocentric ethics value living organisms, species, and eco- systems.36 More generally, a biotic ethics can be defined that values the core pattern of Life itself, that is, self- propagation through gene/protein cycles. This can be broadened further to panbiotic ethics, which seek to maximize life in space and time, and to incorporate in Life all the accessible resources.37 All life-centered ethics aim to secure our family of gene/ protein life. Traditional biocentric ethics favor the con- servation of existing species. Biotic ethics favor the evolution of new life-forms that help to secure gene/ protein life in space. Panbiotic ethics favor the perpetual expansion of life with the continuing divergence of new species. SUMMARY Adapting Life to space will require major biological changes, helped by designed evolution. Our designs will then become self-fulfilling, and we shall need to propa- gate life deliberately in order to secure our survival. Life- centered ethics can motivate this quest, secure the future, and shape it with far-reaching, even cosmic, conse- quences. Therefore life-centered ethics themselves need always to be propagated. Indeed, judging by observed behavior, the effective purpose of life is self-propagation . Briefly, the self- contained purpose of life is to live. Being part of life then defines a human purpose, to safeguard and propagate life. This also defines moral values: Acts that support life are good and acts that destroy life are evil . Life-centered ethics can be supported by scientific insights: the biological unity of all gene/protein life, and the special place of complex life in nature, which precisely permits biology to exist. Life-centered ethics can be generalized as biotic ethics that value the basic patterns of organic gene/protein life, and as panbiotic ethics that seek to expand life in the universe. The panbiotic objectives can be quantified, to maximize the time-integrated biomass in living matter. To maximize life, we can soon start to settle our Solar System, and to seed with life new solar systems beyond. The expansion of life will increase biological complexity, diversity and intelligence, leading to new species who can further propagate life in the universe. From the human viewpoint, future life may best enjoy conscious existence, further motivating self-propagation. Indeed, control must always remain with organic gene/protein life that has a vested interest to continue organic life.

AT: PANSPERMIA IMPOSSIBLEBrute force efforts solve – even mere fragments of DNA would work and shielding mitigates cosmic radiationBattersby 2/5/11 - visiting senior fellow at the Robens Centre for Public and Environmental Health, University of Surre, President of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (Stephen, “Go Forth and Multiply,” New Scientist, lexis nexis)

Then again, maybe it does not matter if the bugs are dead on arrival. Last year, Paul Wesson of the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Canada suggested that even the shattered corpses of microbes, just fragments of DNA and other biomolecules, could help life to emerge. He called the idea "necropanspermia".Alternatively, shielding a few metres thick on the spacecraft would cut out the bulk of cosmic ray damage. Another solution might be to revive the passengers from time to time so they can repair any DNA damage, before suspending their animation again. These options would require much larger spacecraft, though, which would spoil one of Mautner's aims –; to make directed panspermia relatively cheap. After all, a project that

UMich 7 Week Seniors 52Solar Sails Affmay not bear fruit for billions of years, and whose success or failure may never be known, seems unlikely to attract vast funds.The cost of Mautner's lower-tech approach depends on a lot of factors. How many capsules must land on a young planet, say, to achieve a fair chance of some bug becoming established? Mautner guesses a hundred, although McKay feels that is optimistic. "The chances of any particular organism growing or any particular capsule falling on fertile ground is vanishingly small," says McKay. "The good thing is that it's easy to make billions of them."

AT: ANTIMATTER/NUCLEAR POWER = BETTER OPTIONSViable exploration alternatives don’t existVulpetti, et. al, 7 – Ph.D, member of he International Academy of Astronautics, Associate Fellow of AIAA, and Member of the Planetary Society(2007, Giovanni Vulpetti, Les Johnson, and Gregory Matloff, Solar sails : a novel approach to interplanetary travel, p. 91-110)

All right, so instantaneous interstellar travel seems to be beyond us. But what about flight at relativistic or near-optic velocities, close to 300,000 kilometers per second. Even though travel at near light speed would take years or decades from the point of view of Earth-bound observers, even to near stars, special relativity predicts that such flights will be much shorter from the point of view of on-board crew members. When I.S. Shlovskii and Carl Sagan published their classic, Intelligent Life in the Universe, in the 1960s, they noted that only two modes of relativistic travel seemed physically possible. These are the antimatter rocket and the hydrogen-fusing ramjet. Although their operation would not violate the laws of physics, there are serious technological and economic limitations to the near-term development of these travel modes. Every elementary subatomic particle has a corresponding antiparticle (see Chapter 3). Put some matter and a corresponding mass of antimatter together and—boom! All the matter and antimatter is instantly (and explosively) converted into energy. The matter-to-energy conversion efficiency of the matter-antimatter reaction is more than 100 x greater than the best we can do with nuclear fusion and fission. So all we have to do, conceptually, is load our interstellar rocket with lots of hydrogen and an equal mass of antihydrogen. If the matter and antimatter are allowed to slowly interact, the reaction can accelerate the craft to relativistic velocities. But there are two big problems. First is the economics of antimatter production. Yes, we can produce tiny quantities—nanograms per year—of the stuff in our most energetic nuclear accelerators. But the cost is staggering. If the entire U.S. economy were devoted to the production of the stuff, even allowing for economies of scale, it is doubtful that we could produce a gram in a decade. Even if a breakthrough alleviates the economic issue, there is another problem. How do we safely store the stuff for years or decades during the starship's acceleration process? Remember that if even 1 milligram of antimatter comes in contact with the storage chamber (which is constructed of normal matter), the ship will instantly self-destruct! In principle at least, the hydrogen-fusing ramjet is a more elegant solution. There are plenty of ionized hydrogen particles—protons—adrift in the interstellar medium. A properly configured electromagnetic field (a so- called ''ramscoop'') could conceivably be utilized to collect these over a thousand-kilometer radius from the interstellar medium in front of a starship. These collected particles could then be directed into an advanced nuclear-fusion reactor and joined together (fused) to create helium and energy. The reaction energy could be applied to the helium exhaust to accelerate the starship up to relativistic velocities. But as with the antimatter rocket, there are two major issues to constructing a ramjet. In this case, both are technological. First and foremost is the low reactivity of the proton-proton reaction. While it is true that almost all stars, including our Sun, radiate energy produced by proton fusion, this reaction is many orders of magnitude more difficult to achieve in the laboratory than thermonuclear fusion reactions used in the hydrogen bomb and our experimental fusion reactors. Barring a major breakthrough, we may never be able to tame proton fusion without carrying around a stellar mass—a somewhat inelegant approach to interstellar travel. Even though other reactions could be used to propel slower ramjet derivatives, there is a secondary technological issue. Most electromagnetic ramscoop designs are much better at reflecting interstellar protons than collecting them. It is far easier to design an electromagnetic drag sail to slow a speeding starship than a ramscoop to collect fuel from the interstellar medium. So we will abandon relativistic starflight concepts from our consideration. What a pity—but we still could have "slow boats'' that would take centuries to cross the gulf between our solar system and its nearest stellar neighbors.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 53Solar Sails Aff

AT: COLONIZATION IMPOSSIBLEA cosmic laser could power a solar sail to reach the nearest star within our human lifetimeLamb 12/6/10 - a senior fellow and deputy director of the Program on Crisis, Conflict, and Cooperation (C3) at CSIS (Robert, “Are Solar Sails the Future of Space Travel,” Discovery News, http://news.discovery.com/space/are-solar-sails-the-future-of-space-travel.html) Ride the Cosmic LaserSailing on the sun's solar wind certainly comes with its share of limitations. After all, a solar sail craft would have to start off very close to the sun to achieve its momentum and would experience decreased push the farther it traveled from the star.What if you could generate your own solar wind with laser and particle beam technology? Future generations may develop a kind of laser highway to distant systems by emitting a concentrated photon beam in the right direction. A solar sail vessel would merely enter the stream and hitch a ride, like a paper airplane drifting into the wind made by an electric fan."With such a higher velocity, we'd be able to send an expedition to the nearest star within a human lifetime," Matloff says, "provided you built a large enough laser, a large enough sail and a light enough spacecraft."Still, such an impressive laser highway wouldn't come cheap. An interstellar energy bream projector would require vast amounts of energy -- far more than our current world power utilization. Will it be more than we're willing to pay?"Certainly in few hundred years, as we build a civilization that’s more at home in the solar system, there is no reason why we can’t play games with beaming energy," Matloff says.

JAPAN LEADING SOLAR SAIL TECH NOWAnd, Japan is gaining the lead in solar sail technology with the IKAROS sailCasey 10 (Tina, Staff @ Clean Technica - a news forum for energy-related technological developments, ""Saran Wrap" Solar Sails are Powering New Space Exploration,"http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DJysZQNuHJQJ:cleantechnica.com/2010/08/11/saran-wrap-solar-sails-are-powering-new-space-exploration/+u.s.-space-policy+leadership+%22solar+sails%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)

When IKAROS was first launched, there was considerable anxiety as to whether or not the technology would actually work in flight.   The Solar Sail Symposium,  hosted by the New York City College of Technology, appears to have laid those fears to rest.   A team of scientists from JAXA, Japan’s space agency, presented “stunning visuals” confirming that the membrane was successfully deployed and the craft was accelerating. In future projects, JAXA plans to send partially sail-powered spacecraft to Jupiter and the Trojan asteroid. Looks like the U.S. has some catching up to do – hey, good thing Congress just voted in favor of a bill to help local school districts with funds to avoid massive teacher layoffs, though to be honest almost the only representatives who voted for the funding bill belong to the current majority party.  Other members of Congress are apparently more focused on cutting taxes for wealthy grownups rather than making an effort on behalf of educating the next generation of scientists.

US SPACE TECH LEADERSHIP LOWThe US is falling behind: Japan is the leader in solar sails and is attempting to expand its space capabilitiesHoltkamp 10. (August 6. Gerard—works at German Space Operations Center. SciLogs. “Solar Sail Navigation” http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/spacetimedreamer/2010-08-06/solar-sail-navigation)Although the mission objectives of the IKAROS mission have now been achieved the tests will continue. It is important to get more data on the behaviour of the sail in deep space and compare these data with the computer models. This will help

***SPACE LEADERSHIP EXT

UMich 7 Week Seniors 54Solar Sails Affdesigners of future solar sail missions in their work. Without doubt Japan has become the leader in solar sail technology. We can expect interesting missions in the future!Another development showing Japan's ever increasing determination to be a major space power is the announcement last week that from April next year on space launches from the Japanese facilities at Tanegashima and Uchinora will be able to be conducted year round.Up to now Japanese space launches were restricted to no more than 190 days per year to periods outside the fishery seasons. This may sound strange to the rest of the world. After all there are plenty of fishing vessels off the Florida coast or off French Guyana. All it takes is to stay clear of a well defined area during the day of a rocket launch to avoid some rocket debris to fall on your boat. But of course to the Japanese fish is not just another food group but an important element of their culture. Now however an agreement was reached between JAXA and the local fishery organizations. The total number of launches will be limited to 17 per year but this is far less than the Japanese have ever attempted so far and is hardly a restriction. Opening up launch sites for year round operations is important in two ways: It will improve   competitiveness for commercial launches but it also enables more possibilities for interplanetary missions which Japan is very actively involved in and which require highly restricted launch windows.Space has become an integral part of Japanese culture.

Budget cuts and lack of innovation destroying US space leadership now Mankins, 9 –25 years at NASA Headquarters and JPL (May 18, John, “To boldly go: the urgent need for a revitalized investment in space technology”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1377/1)

Space has never been more important to our national security than it is today. The opportunities for truly profound scientific discoveries through space exploration have never been greater. And the pace of international development of new capabilities for space operations has never been faster. Federal budgets for advanced research and technology to enable future space exploration and development have been reduced in scope and focused on near-term system developments to the point that US preeminence in space activities is in question. NASA’s advanced space research and technology budget was over $2 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2005, with a focus on objectives five to ten years in the future and with the purpose of informing program and design decisions, while retiring both technical and budget risks of those future programs. The President’s FY 2007 budget for NASA exploration technology declined to less than $700 million, and of that only a small fraction (perhaps less than $200 million) still addressed longer-term objectives. The corresponding budgets in 2008 and 2009 were further reduced. Little to none of the remaining investment deals with enabling fundamentally new goals or objectives, or dramatically reducing expected costs. With these funding levels and program goals, it is unlikely that the US will maintain leadership in space exploration beyond the current generation of projects—all of which are founded on the “seed corn” harvested from past investments in innovative new space capabilities. Further, declining support for space research and technology is creating an innovation vacuum in the US as small business opportunities evaporate, and funding for universities and students vanishes. This trend jeopardizes America’s long-term leadership in space exploration and development, and damages our ability to achieve important national security goals.

US SPACE LEADERSHIP LOW NOW/NEW + DIVERSE PRIORITIES KEY

UMich 7 Week Seniors 55Solar Sails AffInitially note that US space leadership is low now—failed space programs and lack of creativity doom Obama’s attempts to reinvigorate NASA—new science that promotes exploration is keyStern, 10 – aerospace consultant and NASA’s former Associate Administrator in charge of Science (April 19, Alan, “Human spaceflight: diversify the portfolio”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1609/1)

Instead, human spaceflight in the United States has struggled just to keep its sole domestic transportation system, the Space Shuttle, flying a few times per year, and to complete the assembly of its sole destination—the International Space Station. And new programs, with names like Orient Express, SEI, Orbital Space Plane, and now Orion/Ares, in every case became politically or fiscally unsustainable, yielding only hallucinations for space exploration, rather than the real thing. This is something we must change if the United States is to lead in space. One common characteristic of human spaceflight efforts in the US is that they have consistently revolved around a monolithic architecture-destination combination that required the efforts of many tens of thousands of individuals and virtually the entirety of NASA’s human spaceflight development budget. By contrast, in NASA’s science program, which I formerly directed, dozens and dozens of concurrent space flight projects are always in development, from brief suborbital missions, to small Earth orbiters, to small, medium, and large-scale planetary missions, to vast multi-billion dollar efforts like Hubble and the James Webb Space Telescope that require thousands of individuals to develop. The diversity of NASA’s science mission portfolio is one of its great strengths, for no single mission, no individual development, no single charge number, and no single launch risks the fate of the entire program. After all, it’s no secret that if you only own one stock, you probably deserve what you get. This diversity of science mission efforts, just like the diversity in other forms of aerospace development—from airliners to missiles to combat aircraft to transports—is a trait that civil human spaceflight could well benefit from. Fortunately in the Obama Administration’s vision for NASA, we already see the seeds of a diversified portfolio for human spaceflight. In its fiscal year 2011 NASA budget request, the administration requests funds to use multiple human-carrying suborbital vehicle designs to conduct research and education missions, and to initiate two separate new human-carrying systems to transport crew to the International Space Station. Multi-pronged of this sort efforts promote competition, drive innovation and design diversity, and give the government valuable cost control options that monolithic (single-legged) transportation access does not. Multiple efforts also provide a kind of robustness in the event of accidents that domestic human spaceflight has never before enjoyed. The Administration is to be commended for this fresh and promising approach, and Congress should endorse it in the authorizations and appropriation processes. Could that same approach be further extended, to help us again realize human exploration of the solar system? It is time to reinvent human space exploration, to make it simultaneously affordable, sustainable, exciting, and robust. There are no laws of man or physics that require human exploration systems to cost tens of billions of dollars and take multiple decades to field. Indeed, there is now ample empirical evidence that old-style, Apollo-like development practices today produce more commotion than forward motion, and have only stymied the pace and achievement of human space exploration. What we need now is more than just a flexible path. We need parallel paths. To be more specific, we need a suite of lean human space exploration system development efforts, each perhaps fielded by different NASA centers, in analogy to how we implement robotic spaceflight. These new human exploration efforts should be aimed at putting in place simultaneous lunar and asteroid exploration, high earth orbit and Lagrange point servicing, and perhaps the first forays to the planets. Of key importance to successfully exploiting this approach will be the recognition that these new systems—developed in most cases via non-traditional “NewSpace” economic practices—cost pennies to dimes on the dollar compared to the old-style “so big they always fail” human spaceflight efforts. This is how Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites invented and fielded a fledgling human spaceflight capability for many times less than NASA expended on Space Shuttle brakes alone. Lowering costs through true competition and the realization that projects can be cancelled is fundamental: for it is only the combination of a multiplicity of efforts and breakthrough price points that makes a diversified human spaceflight portfolio viable. So let’s incent industry to produce safe systems for human exploration inexpensive

UMich 7 Week Seniors 56Solar Sails Affenough for NASA to afford multiple parallel efforts. And let’s ask how, more than 40 years after Apollo—as far in Apollo’s future as Charles Lindbergh was in its past—American ingenuity can produce a lunar return by Americans for a development cost of $3–5 billion, a high orbit satellite servicing capability for still less, and a first mission to a near Earth asteroid that costs no more than ten times what a decade-long robotic mission to Pluto does—say for $7–8 billion. Yes, the developments that result may be limited in their capability compared to what $100-billion development efforts might promise, but expensive, monolithic development efforts have been singularly unproductive in delivering any actual exploration. It is time to reinvent human space exploration, to make it simultaneously affordable, sustainable, exciting, and robust. It may be hard, but it is time to find a new way forward that can serve the future, rather than the past. So let’s diversify our human spaceflight portfolio in the United States, let’s reinvent how we do things, let’s turn some heads, and let’s make history and lead again, and again, and again.

SPACE LEADERSHIP KEY TO US HEGEMONY Space leadership independently checks the rise of hostile global rivals

Snead, 07 - Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development (Mike, “How America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,” Spacefaring America Blog, 6/3, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx)

Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based on advancing science and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operational capabilities. A great power that succeeds in this competition adds to its power while a great power that does not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice,

becomes comparatively less powerful. Eventually, it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great

power for protection. As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade later leadership in this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights, the great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty years later, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning another major European war, the U.S. found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish national investment in aeronautics during the 1920's and 1930's—you may recall that this was the era of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces at a significant disadvantage compared to those of Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the "game changer" for conventional warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable

air forces to survive and generally needed air superiority to prevail. With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those derived from becoming air-faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengths through expanded national space power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or the rapid growth of current great powers to the point that they are capable of effectively challenging the U.S. Many great powers—China, India, and Russia—are already speaking of plans for developing spacefaring capabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a commanding aerospace technological lead over these nations. A strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring nation, starting in 2009 with the new presidential administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just through prudent increases in military strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above. This is an advantage that the next presidential administration should exercise.

SOLAR SAILS KEY TO OTHER EXPLORATION MISSIONSSolar sails cut costs and speed up all exploration missionsJanhunen, 8 – Ph.D., is a researcher in Finnish Meteorological Institute (2008, Pekka Janhunen, Journey of the British Interplanetary Society, “THE ELECTRIC SAIL - A NEW PROPULSION METHOD WHICH MAY ENABLE FAST MISSIONS TO THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM”, Vol. 61, google)

Specifically, the electric sail would enable missions in the following classes. 1. Flight out of the Solar System into interstellar space, out of the influence region of our Sun (the heliosphere). Although traditional techniques (chemical propulsion combined with solar and planetary gravity assists, nuclear electric propulsion or solar sail) can be used to

UMich 7 Week Seniors 57Solar Sails Affreach the heliopause within 25-30 years, the electric sail could reach the target in a much more attractive time span of 15 years. Furthermore, the mission could potentially be rather cheap because the hardware is lightweight (no need for heavy-lift booster rocket). ESA calls this mission the Interstellar Heliopause Probe (IHP). 2. Rapid flyby mission of any target in the Solar System. This is a variation of the previous one, where one selects a specific target and pays more attention to accurate navigation to make a close flyby. For example, there are many objects in the Kuiper belt that have never been imaged in situ. 3. An off-Lagrange point solar wind monitor, i.e. a spacecraft that hovers between Sun and Earth and measures the solar wind. The traditional technique (used e.g. in SOHO) is to place the probe at the Lagrange L1 point. The most accurate and reliable method to predict space weather is to measure the solar wind and its magnetic field before it impacts Earth’s magnetosphere. The drawback of the Lagrange point is, however, that it takes only ~ 1 hour for the solar wind to travel from there to Earth’s magnetosphere, i.e. one gets only about one hour of warning time in terms of space weather forecasting. This is inconveniently short for many operational purposes. With the electric sail one could place the spacecraft somewhere else, for example four times farther from the Earth than the Lagrange L1 point, so that one would get a four-hour warning time. A technical detail is that because the probe would be heavily charged when propulsion is on, one would have to alternate between solar wind monitoring phases and propulsive phases, for example 5 min each. This is not a problem since one can turn off propulsion simply by turning off the electron gun, after which the tethers get neutralised in about 30 seconds and ion measurements start to give meaningful results. 4. Other missions in the inner solar system, for example studying the Sun at close range or fetching samples from asteroids. Using the electric sail would not make these missions faster, but it might cut their costs significantly because no propellant is needed.

Solar Sails provide the interplanetary transportation infrastructure for all space exploration and developmentLeipold et al 98 – Ph.D., works at Kayser-Threde, a leading German high-technology company, has worked in the Institute of Planetary Exploration of the German Space Agency (DLR) (Manfred Leipold, W. Seboldt, A. Hermann, G. Pagel, W. Unckenbold, C.E. Garner, “SM98- ODISSEE - A Proposal for Demonstration of a Solar Sail in Earth Orbit,” Proceedings of a European Conference held at Braunschweig, Germany regarding low-cost space missions, November 1998, sciencedirect)

Solar sail technology promises to be a low-cost delivery system for high Av missions such as a Mercury orbiter, (multiple) asteroid or comet rendezvous and sample return, as well as for missions to the outer solar system and beyond. A sailcraft could also enable missions never considered possible, such as non-Keplerian orbits around the Earth or Sun, or close solar polar orbiters. Provided solar sailing will be developed within the next decade, it promises to enhance the interplanetary transportation infrastructure for the new millennium.

SOLAR SAILS SOLVE OUTER-ORBIT EXPLORATION

Solar sails solve outer-orbital space exploration Leipold et al ’99 (Institute of Space Sensor Technology and Planetary Exploration at the Aerospace Centre in Germany/ D. Kassing Systems Studies Division, ESA Directorate of Industrial Matters and Technology Programmes, ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands M. Eiden Mechanical Systems Division, ESA Directorate of Technical and Operational Support, ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands L. Herbeck Institute of Structural Mechanics, DLR German Aerospace Centre, Braunschweig, Germany “Solar Sails for Space Exploration – The Development and Demonstration of Critical Technologies in Partnership”, 1999)

UMich 7 Week Seniors 58Solar Sails AffNew mission opportunities applying solar-sail technologies are currently being addressed by NASA also. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), for instance, has recently completed a study of a proposed Solar Polar Sail Mission that would use solar-sail propulsion to place a spacecraft in a circular 4-month orbit at a distance of 0.48 AU from the Sun with an inclination of 90º. The mission would provide data on the solar corona to complement observations of the Sun’s disk and the solarwind data obtained near Earth. Another potential solar-sail mission, proposed by NOAA in cooperation with NASA as well as by European scientists, is a sailcraft to be stationed sunward of the Sun-Earth Lagrangian point L1. Solar photon pressure on the sail would be required for the sailcraft to fly inside the L1 point whilst remaining on the Earth-Sun line (the outward radial force on the sail must compensate for the lower centrifugal force on the sailcraft). From this vantage point, the sailcraft would deliver a factor 2 improvement in solar-storm warning time (60 min compared to 30 min) over a conventional satellite stationed at L1. A similar mission concept called ‘Vigiwind’ was proposed in Europe by U3P and CNES in 1996. Transfers to Pluto and beyond would also be possible with solar-sail propulsion. So-called ‘indirect’ or ‘solar photonic assist’ trajectories, investigated recently by DLR, allow short trip times to Pluto with solar sails. Figure 3 shows the ecliptic projection of a transfer to Pluto using a sailcraft with a characteristic acceleration of 0.7 mm/s 2 and a double swingby at the Sun. The transfer time from Earth to Pluto flyby in this case is about 10.5 years, which compares favourably with conventional transfers of 11 to 13 years using multiple-gravity-assist trajectories at Venus and Jupiter. By extending the principle of single or multiple ‘solar photonic assist’ trajectories, advanced solar sails might be capable of achieving high enough speeds to propel spacecraft out of our Solar System. Assuming that ‘second-generation’ solar sails might have characteristic accelerations (ac ) in the order of 1 to 3 mm/s 2 and ultra-light sail structures of 1 to 5 g/m 2 , very high speeds could indeed be achieved. By using close solar approaches to within 0.3 AU or even less, using special sail 1 coatings and high-performance materials capable of handling the very high temperatures, escape velocities of 50 to 100 km/s or more might be achievable. The mission concept envisages a sailcraft that is injected into a heliocentric orbit at 1 AU, in which the solar sail is then deployed. In a corresponding NASA study, the mission trajectory would carry the sailcraft to 2 AU approximately one year after launch and then sunward to a perihelion distance of 0.25 AU to exit the Solar System with a velocity of 10.9 AU/year. At this velocity, a Jupiter orbital distance would be achieved within 2.1 years after launch, and 200 AU within 20 years.

USFG TECH INVESTMENTS KEY TO SPACE LEADERSHIPUSFG investment is absolutely necessary for pre-eminence in space leadershipMankins, 9 –25 years at NASA Headquarters and JPL (May 18, John, “To boldly go: the urgent need for a revitalized investment in space technology”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1377/1)

It is hardly consistent with the aspirations of Americans to “go where everyone has been before…” However, it is fantasy to suppose that the civil space program can affordably accomplish ambitious goals and objectives in space using systems concepts and technologies of the last century. Novel technologies and systems concepts must be matured and validated before decisions are made regarding the detailed designs of future space systems. In fact, numerous reports over a period of decades have established the criticality of a robust and focused investment in advanced research and technology, including the findings of several National Commissions, committees of the National Academy of Sciences, and others. Stable, robust, long-term federal investments in advanced

1

UMich 7 Week Seniors 59Solar Sails Affresearch and technology for future civil space capabilities—funded at a level sufficient to assure US preeminence in space science, exploration, and utilization—are critical if we are to meet the challenges of this century: achieving ambitious goals in science and exploration, delivering on the promise of space to contribute to a strong national economy, maintaining a skilled aerospace workforce, and providing the foundations for future national security. It is time for the Congress and the White House—recognizing the challenges facing this nation’s space sector—to articulate and implement a strategy to revitalize advanced space research and technology and to make a sustained commitment to the implementation of that strategy. The recently chartered national study on the future of human space exploration, chaired by Norm Augustine, should take up this task.

Solar sails cause spark various technological spinoffs Seboldt and Dachwald 03 – work at the German Aerospace Center (Wofgang and Bernd, “Solar Sailcraft of the First Generation – Technology Development, Institute of Space Simulation, 10/3/03, http://www.spacesailing.net/paper/200310_Bremen_SeboldtDachwald.pdf.)Free-flying solar sail demonstration missions in higher Earth orbits (≥ 1000 km altitude) are not recommended. Due to the possibility of creating dangerous space debris, they should be avoided if a controlled de-orbiting is not guaranteed. PROBABLE SPIN-OFFS AND SPIN-ONS There is potentially a larger market in the future for applications of light-weight structure technology (deployable plus inflatable), e.g. • large light-weight solar arrays (with thin film PV technology) • large concentrating mirrors (e.g. solar concentrators) for power production, large antennas for communication and space-based astronomical telescopes • integrated multi-functional large and extremely light-weight structures for "Gossamer" spacecraft

2AC SOLAR STORMS/ECON ADD-ONSolar storms are a direct threat—can knock out critical satellites and leave the US open to attack without warningVulpetti, et. al, 7 – Ph.D, member of he International Academy of Astronautics, Associate Fellow of AIAA, and Member of the Planetary Society(2007, Giovanni Vulpetti, Les Johnson, and Gregory Matloff, Solar sails : a novel approach to interplanetary travel, p. 91-110)

Unless the owners and operators of Earth-orbiting spacecraft do something to mitigate the effects of these storms, damage will occur. The loss of a satellite might seem at first to be an esoteric risk that affects "someone else.'' Instead, imagine the loss of weather satellite coverage for an extended period of time, including the hurricane season; the ability to accurately predict the location of landfall for a category 4 or 5 hurricane declines to the point that major population centers must be evacuated just because we don't precisely know the track of any particular storm and people may be in its path. Companies and whole industries use the global positioning system and other satellite assets to accurately manage their inventories and track shipments. Corporate managers plan their business strategy and make decisions based on where certain products or materials are located at any given time. With a sudden loss in this capability, millions or even billons of dollars might be jeopardized. Cable television, now estimated to be in 68 percent of television-equipped U.S. households, is also at risk. After all, the cable only carries the television signal from your local cable company to your living room. The cable company gets the television signals from satellites located about 36,000 kilometers above the equator. If the satellites go out, the cable companies go out of business. Perhaps most importantly, the loss of our military and spy satellites would leave whole countries vulnerable to a surprise attack. Knowing that the spy satellite infrastructure is "down" might be a very tempting opportunity for an adversary to take advantage of. There are other,

***2AC ADD-ONS

UMich 7 Week Seniors 60Solar Sails Affmore down-to-earth impacts spawned by these storms, especially for those living at northern latitudes. Recall that charged particles moving through a magnetic field will experience force acting upon them. So also will a moving magnetic field induce an electric current in a wire. Electrical utility wires (particularly those hanging from telephone poles at northern latitudes) will feel the effect of the solar storm as Earth's magnetic field is compressed, varying in intensity with time. This changing magnetic field induces current flow in the wires, creating spurious currents that knock out transformers and otherwise disrupt or shut down the transmission of electrical power. This is a real effect and it has happened.

Disruption of satellites shatters the global economyDillow 10 (Clay, Researcher – Popular Science Magazine, “Pentagon: A Space Junk Collision Could Set Off Catastrophic Chain Reaction, Disable Earth Communications”, Popsci, 5-27, http://www.popsci.com/technology/ article/2010-05/dod-space-junk-tipping-point-collision-could-set-catastrophic-chain-reaction)

Our reliance on satellites goes beyond the obvious. We depend on them for television signals, the evening weather report, and to find our houses on Google Earth when we're bored at work. But behind the scenes, they also inform our warfighting capabilities, keep track of the global shipping networks that keep our economies humming, and help us get to the places we need to get to via GPS.According to the DoD's interim Space Posture Review, that could all come crashing down. Literally. Our satellites are sorely outnumbered by space debris, to the tune of 370,000 pieces of junk up there versus 1,100 satellites. That junk ranges from nuts and bolts lost during spacewalks to pieces of older satellites to whole satellites that no longer function, and it's all whipping around the Earth at a rate of about 4.8 miles per second.The fear is that with so much junk already up there, a collision is numerically probable at some point. Two large pieces of junk colliding could theoretically send thousands more potential satellite killers into orbit, and those could in turn collide with other pieces of junk or with satellites, unleashing another swarm of debris. You get the idea.To give an idea of how quickly a chain reaction could get out hand consider this: in February of last year a defunct Russian satellite collided with a communications satellite, turning 2 orbiting craft into 1,500 pieces of junk. The Chinese missile test that obliterated a satellite in 2007 spawned 100 times more than that, scattering 150,000 pieces of debris.If a chain reaction got out of control up there, it could very quickly sever our communications , our GPS system (upon which the U.S. military heavily relies), and cripple the global economy (not to mention destroy the $250 billion space services industry), and whole orbits could be rendered unusable, potentially making some places on Earth technological dead zones.

Solar sails can provide early warning of solar storms to satellites—allows preparation timeVulpetti, et. al, 7 – Ph.D, member of he International Academy of Astronautics, Associate Fellow of AIAA, and Member of the Planetary Society(2007, Giovanni Vulpetti, Les Johnson, and Gregory Matloff, Solar sails : a novel approach to interplanetary travel, p. 91-110)

Even better, a sailcraft can be positioned in a direct line between the Sun and Earth, remaining in this otherwise propulsive-intense location, and can be available to provide earlier warning of impending storms. The ship must thrust continuously to remain on station— a task ideal for a solar sail . NASA is considering a mission using a solar sail to either replace the ACE spacecraft or as a complement to its replacement. The potential mission has been called many names, from "Geostorm" to its current incarnation, "Heliostorm." Trade studies to determine the optimal science instrument complement, spacecraft, and solar-sail propulsion-system characteristics are ongoing, and will likely continue until the mission is approved for flight. An early Heliostorm concept would use a square sail, 70 meters on each edge, with a total mass of <200 kilograms to accomplish the mission goals. It would be launched from Earth in a relatively small rocket, such as a Pegasus Falcon, and propelled to 0.98 astronomical units (AU) by a conventional chemical rocket. The sail would then deploy and operations commence. An advanced version of the Heliostorm concept (based on advanced technology) would consist of a sailcraft with a total mass of 300 kilograms and a circular sail 230 meters in radius. Such a spacecraft could orbit the Sun stably at 0.70 AU (never being captured by Venus) in the ecliptic plane with a period of exactly 1 year. Once put 0.30 AU from the Earth sunward, its mean position with respect to Earth would not change, and the space-storm warning time would range

UMich 7 Week Seniors 61Solar Sails Afffrom 16 to 31 hours. (A technical explanation of this mission concept can be found in Chapter 17.) Such time would be enough even for astronauts who will be working on the Moon, far from their lunar base.

2AC SPACE DEBRIS ADD-ON Solar sails are critical to satellite burnups solving space debrisMann 2/3 – staff writer for Nature News (2011, Adam, “Solar sails pick up speed”, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110203/full/news.2011.68.html, accessed June 25, 2011, ZR) In contrast to IKAROS, NanoSail-D was designed to travel closer to home. Launched into low-Earth orbit, it will experience drag on the sail as it skims the planet's upper atmosphere. Within a few months, the spacecraft should slow sufficiently to re-enter and burn up. The technology could one day be attached to decommissioned satellites to slow them down and assist in de-orbiting, says Dean Alhorn, an engineer at NASA's Marshal Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and principal investigator of the NanoSail-D mission. 

Insert relevant debris stuff

SOLAR SAIL DEMONSTRATION KEY TO MISSION VIABILITYWe have a solvency advocate – the plan stimulates future research into solar sails and sparks the development of new methods/tools Johnson et al. 10 - Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA (Les, R. Young, D. Alhorn, A. Heaton, T. Vansant, B. Campbell, R. Pappa, W. Keats, P. C. Liewer, D. Alexander, J. Ayon, G. Wawrzyniak, R. Burton, D. Carroll, G. Matloff, R. Ya. Kezerashvili, “Solar Sail Propulsion: Enabling New Capabilities for Heliophysics,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, 12/23/10)FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONSTaking solar sail propulsion technology from ground testing to flight validation and mission implementation is one of the top ten priorities described in the NASA Office of Chief Technologist’s draft In-Space Propulsion Systems Technology Roadmap. The next step in making this technology available for use in future missions is flight validation of a full-scale (> 1000m2) solar sail propulsion system. Based on the NASA ST-9 mission concept study, the development cost for such a system would be less than $200M (not including the cost of launch or mission operations). In addition to funding for solar sail technology programs, we also advocate funding on the order of $250K to $500K per year (5 to 10 grants per year) to be distributed to NASA centers and universities for solar sail mission design. Solar sail trajectory analysis leads to new mission applications, uncovering new regimes for heliophysics scientific exploration. This grant program would stimulate new research into solar sail missions and encourage growth and development of new methods and mission analysis tools

***SOLVENCY EXT

UMich 7 Week Seniors 62Solar Sails Afffor solar sail trajectory, navigation, and attitude control analysis. Assuming 3-year grants, the total program cost for this additional research would be on the order of $0.75 to 1.5M.

A solar sail demonstration is a pre-requisite before solar sail propulsion missions can be considered viableLeipold et al 98 – Ph.D., works at Kayser-Threde, a leading German high-technology company, has worked in the Institute of Planetary Exploration of the German Space Agency (DLR) (Manfred Leipold, W. Seboldt, A. Hermann, G. Pagel, W. Unckenbold, C.E. Garner, “SM98- ODISSEE - A Proposal for Demonstration of a Solar Sail in Earth Orbit,” Proceedings of a European Conference held at Braunschweig, Germany regarding low-cost space missions, November 1998, sciencedirect)

Recently NASA as well as DLR and other agencies have encouraged programs to reduce the size and mass of spacecraft used for robotic exploration of the solar system. Spacecraft with masses under l00kg are being studied for performing challenging missions, and microspacecraft technology is being developed that may result in robotic spacecraft with masses of only several 10s of kg. Significant progress in lightweight deployable structures and advanced materials, spacecraft miniaturization and on-board autonomy can significantly contribute to the development of solar sail technology as much smaller sail sizes (on the order of 100m x 100m or even smaller) are considered today for these missions than had been discussed in the past. Thus solar sailing could substantially benefit from technology development within other programs. A recent feasibility study performed at ESA proposed a 10m x 10m solar sail for a demonstration mission in Earth orbit.The basic idea behind solar sailing is simple, but there are difficult engineering problems to be solved. The technical challenges are to fabricate sails using ultra-thin 'films and light-weight booms, package sails in a small volume, deploy these lightweight structures in space, and control the large but low-mass structure. The solutions to these challenges must be demonstrated in space before solar sail propulsion is considered viable for any mission. A low-cost demonstration mission as investigated jointly by DLR and NASA/JPL and summarized in this paper is the recommended approach for the development of this advanced propulsion concept.

A low-cost solar sail technology demonstration proves feasibility and validates the basic principle of solar sailingLeipold et al 98 – Ph.D., works at Kayser-Threde, a leading German high-technology company, has worked in the Institute of Planetary Exploration of the German Space Agency (DLR) (Manfred Leipold, W. Seboldt, A. Hermann, G. Pagel, W. Unckenbold, C.E. Garner, “SM98- ODISSEE - A Proposal for Demonstration of a Solar Sail in Earth Orbit,” Proceedings of a European Conference held at Braunschweig, Germany regarding low-cost space missions, November 1998, sciencedirect)7 Summary and Conclusions The feasibility study conducted jointly between DLR and NASA/JPL concluded that a low-cost solar sail technology demonstration mission in Earth orbit is feasible and necessary to validate the basic principle of solar sailing. Such a demonstration mission is the recommended approach for the development of this promising advanced propulsion concept. The proposed ODISSEE mission would demonstrate and validate the basic principles of sail fabrication, packaging and storage, deployment and control. Such an in-orbit demonstration is required before solar sail propulsion can be considered viable for advanced missions. The feasibility study concluded that a low-cost scenario using the ARIANES 'piggy-back' launch to GTO with a l00kg mass

UMich 7 Week Seniors 63Solar Sails Affconstraint is possible leaving a margin of about 30% at the current design stage. However, the volume constraints are the main design drivers i.e_ for the sail assembly. The trajectory analysis performed shows that a sail navigation strategy as derived allows sufficient performance to raise the orbit and reach lunar distance within about 1.5 years of flight time. Furthermore, it has been shown that passing through a perigee of 620km and traversing through the Van Allen radiation belts are no 'show-stoppers' for the mission. The structural concept using carbon fiber reinforced plastic booms and a lightweight deployment structure is promising to support a 40m x 40m sail. Alternatively, solar sails using inflatably deployed booms might be considered as an option.

SOLAR SAIL DEMONSTRATION KEY TO MISSION VIABILITY

Larger solar sails must still be demonstratedCarroll 10. (8/9/10. Kieran, Ph.d. An engineer with experience working on satellites and developer of the solar sail system for 20 years. “A Milestone for solar sailing” The Space Review. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1677/1)While almost all of the nanosat-sized missions presented at the symposium are using very similar designs for their solar sail subsystem—a non-spinning square sail supported by four diagonal booms, with the satellite bus at the center of the square where the booms intersect—there are numerous other solar sail designs that have been conceived and studied in the past, some of which were the topics of the other papers presented at the symposium. It seems that the boom-supported square sail is the simplest and lowest-cost and -risk design to use when designing an ultra-small solar sail, factors which are paramount for the current generation of demonstration missions. However, for future operational missions using solar sail propulsion, sail designs are needed that can scale up from the current sizes of 10–35 square meters to sizes well in excess of 1,000 square meters so that they can carry useful payloads. The initial demo missions will answer some very important technical questions about solar sailing, and will push forward the frontier of knowledge and capability for this technology. But a next round of demonstration missions will then be needed in order to demonstrate much larger sails, and to move towards the goal of mass/area ratios in the range of 10–20 grams per square meter. I expect before too long to see a greater diversity of solar sail design approaches being tested and flown.

LARGE-SCALE DEMONSTRATION KEY

Advanced in large scale solar sails is crucial to validate their effectiveness – they must be tested in space not just ground demonstrationsJohnson et al. 10 – Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA (Les, Roy Young, Edward Montgomery, and Dean Alhorn. “Status of solar sail technology within NASA, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, 10/23/10, http://www.kkccyu.cjb.net/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-51S25KP-2-7&_cdi=5738&_user=4861547&_pii=S0273117710007982&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=12%2F21%2F2010&_sk=999999999&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkzV&_valck=1&md5=38e6f214ebf40478f46af053b3956e58&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)

In order to mature the TRL of solar sail propulsion, advancements must be made in the pointing and dynamical control of these large space structures. The goal of this task was to understand how to model and scale the subsystem and multi-body system dynamics of a solar sailcraft with the objective of designing sailcraft attitude control systems. Key aspects of this effort included modeling and testing of a 30-m deployable boom,

UMich 7 Week Seniors 64Solar Sails Affmodeling of the multi-body system dynamics of a gossamer sailcraft, and an investigation of control-structures interaction for gossamer sailcraft by semi-active control methods using unobtrusive sensors and effectors. The research concluded that solar sail models that are validated by ground testing are almost certainly not sufficient for full-scale control system design due to control structure interactions. It was also found that dynamic models of solar sailcrafts must include multi-body coupling and structural dynamics of their flexible structural components. For these large structures with stringent control requirements, the inherent structural dynamics uncertainty represents a significant challenge for existing control approaches.

A successful demonstration guarantees more funding and more technological innovationPukniel 10 – submitted in partial fulfillment of degree of Doctor in Philosophy in Aerospace Engineering in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois (Andrzej, “The Dynamics and Control of the Cubesail Mission – A Solar Sailing Demonstration,” 2010, https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/18320/Pukniel_Andrzej.pdf?sequence=1) The presented design of the CubeSail spacecraft offers a low cost, scalable architecture for a solar sailing demonstration in low Earth orbit. The reel-based, gravity gradient stiffened design eliminates the need for external stiffening hardware such as booms, masts, or guy-wires while avoiding classical scaling issues such as Euler buckling. The conformity of the CubeSail spacecraft to the CalPoly CubeSat specifications allows for a highly reduced launch costs and increased launch availability as secondary payload. In doing so, this small-scale demonstration aims at breaking the paradigm of limited funding of poorly characterized solar sailing technology, by increasing the Technology Readiness Level of various subsystems.

Large-scale technologies must be demonstrated in space – all the infrastructure is in place in NASAMurphy et al 04– AEC-Able Engineering Co. (D., T. Trautt, M. McEachen, D. Messner, “Progress and Plans for System Demonstration of a Scalable Square Solar Sail,” American Astronautical Society, 2/12/04, www.aec-able.com/corpinfo/.../AAS%2004-285,%20Thre%20Sailcraft.pdf)Under a 30-month NASA ISP program, AEC-Able (ABLE) Engineering in concert with other activities also under the purview of the ISP projects office at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), are developing ground demonstration systems of a scalable solar-sail propulsion subsystem. No large-scale technologies closely related to solar sailing have yet been demonstrated successfully in space. Over the past few decades many smaller disparate activities in solar sail technology development have been pursued. As a result, materials technology, fabrication experience, and applicable analytics have been brought forward to a point where projections for system performance now have real viability. The ISP Program, managed by the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters, has determined that the time is now right to pursue a system demonstration of sail technology that will elevate the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of solar sailing sufficiently to warrant validation in flight.

FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION KEY TO FUTURE MISSIONSFlight validation is necessary to spur more solar sail missionsMurphy et al. 04 (David M. Murphy and Brian D. Macy – ABLE Engineering, and James L. Gaspar who works at the NASA Langley Research Center, “Demonstration of a 10-m Solar Sail System,” American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.66)

UMich 7 Week Seniors 65Solar Sails Aff

The rationale for the necessity of a flight validation is based in large part on the unsuitability of the ground environment for deployment testing. The deployment kinematics of a Coilable mast are controlled, predictable, and linear. But a large ultra-thin membrane presents difficult challenges in ensuring a predictable, repeatable deployment, especially with the forces of gravity. The examination of the deployed system is also hampered in a gravity environment. The gravity-free shape of the sail , as well as the mast, is critical to performance. For the sail , the surface topology at low stress levels is affected strongly by numerous imperfection sources. 3 For a gossamer mast, the local and global waviness can significantly reduce the strength and stiffness performance. Given realities such as these, the reticence of mission planners to adopt solar sails is understood . Yet through the scope of work now in progress under the auspices of the NASA ISP program, these and other known and as-yet unknown issues in sail systems are being rigorously investigated. And when these efforts are complete a fully validated, scalable, mission-enabling propulsion system will be ready for flight demonstration

This demonstration in space is crucial to advance the technological readiness level of solar sails to be used operationally to solve the advantagesVulpetti et al. 8 – served as a chair of the Interstellar Space Exploration Committee at the International Academy of Astronautics, acted as a consultant in a team to NASA for studying original mission concepts (Giovanni, Les Johnson – Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA, and Gregory L. Matloff - assistant professor of physics at New York City, Solar sails: a novel approach to interplanetary travel, 2008, p.153-159)

To allow new in-space propulsion technologies such as the SPS to mature to their flight application, NASA developed a step-by-step procedure called technological readiness, which works as follows: when a new space propulsion idea emerges from a theory and its basic physical principles are validated, it is assigned a technological readiness level (TRL) of 1. An example of an in-space propulsion concept now at TRL 1 is the proton-fusing interstellar ramjet. It may always remain at this level since its physics is well validated but its technology may never be defined. In some cases, such as the matter-antimatter rocket, the technological requirements can be defined, even if not achieved. Such propulsion concepts are at TRL 2. As an in-space-propulsion concept matures, its TRL increases. Analytical or experimental proof-of-concept investigations are performed, followed by laboratory (breadboard) validation studies. Component and breadboard tests are then performed in a simulated space environment-a vacuum chamber-to achieve a TRL of 5. The next step is to successfully test a prototype of the in-space propulsion system under study in the simulated space environment. To achieve a TRL of 7, a prototype of the propulsion system must be successfully tested in space . The completed system is then qualified through demonstrations on Earth or in space. The highest level of TRL is 9, in which the propulsion system is operationally used in space missions. Examples of such “off-the-shelf” TRL- 9 propulsion systems include chemical rockets. solar-electric rockets, and gravity assists.

FUNDING KEY TO SOLAR SAIL DEVELOPMENTS

Operational Viability of solar sails is on the brink now – more funding is needed

UMich 7 Week Seniors 66Solar Sails AffGilster 7 (Paul, Technology Columnist – News & Observer, “Reflections on Space Policy in Washington”, Centauri Dreams, 11-15, http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1580)Ponder the solar sail itself as seen through the prism of NASA. Work at Marshall Space Flight Center has progressed to the point that the solar sail is close to or at the status of operational viability. In other words, it wouldn’t take much to launch and deploy an actual sail mission in terms of technology. But without the needed funding, such missions don’t happen, which is why space policy can be so difficult to sort out, and so frustrating. That’s one price you pay for democracy, and while I certainly would never want to live under any other form of government, it does account for the fact that our ventures into space sometimes seem to proceed by fits and stars rather than in a stable continuum.

Funding is the only barrier towards solar sail development—not technologyJanhunen, 8 – Ph.D., is a researcher in Finnish Meteorological Institute (2008, Pekka Janhunen, Journey of the British Interplanetary Society, “THE ELECTRIC SAIL - A NEW PROPULSION METHOD WHICH MAY ENABLE FAST MISSIONS TO THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM”, Vol. 61, google)The electric sail is a new and potentially revolutionary deep space propulsion technique which is at the moment undergoing rapid technical development. From the operational viewpoint, the electric sail is like a solar sail, but, when considering high performance levels, it is expected to be easier to construct and deploy. The most important limitation of the electric sail is that it cannot produce thrust in Earth’s magnetosphere because there is no solar wind there. It seems at the moment that building the electric sail will be only moderately challenging. The most challenging parts are in producing and reeling of the long, thin and conducting tethers. Naturally, new technical problems may emerge during the course of the work, but we would be somewhat surprised if one of them would develop into a real “show-stopper” issue. At the moment our main concern is how to find a level of funding for the effort which does not unnecessarily delay or constrain the necessary technical development work . A companion paper (“Considerations of electric sailcraft trajector design”, see also [6]) presents quantitative examples of flight times to the outer solar system of electric sail missions.

Funding is necessary – survey provesJohnson et al. 10 - Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA (Les, R. Young, D. Alhorn, A. Heaton, T. Vansant, B. Campbell, R. Pappa, W. Keats, P. C. Liewer, D. Alexander, J. Ayon, G. Wawrzyniak, R. Burton, D. Carroll, G. Matloff, R. Ya. Kezerashvili, “Solar Sail Propulsion: Enabling New Capabilities for Heliophysics,” NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, 12/23/10)CONCLUSIONSThe TRL of solar sailing technology continues to advance. It has been confirmed by flight testing in deep space that Solar Sail technology is viable for space flight operations. Many important applications of solar sails have been identified as useful to the international science community, especially missions significant to the goals of the 2010 Solar and Heliophysics Decadal Survey. Funding for solar sail technology advancement, including continued examination of solar sail mission applications, is highly recommended as an outcome of the 2010 Decadal Survey.

NASA FUNDING NEEDEDMore funding from NASA is necessary for large scale solar sail developmentCarroll 10 – Ph.D. engineering specializing in small, low-cost satellites, led the team that developed the CSA’s MOST space astronomy microsatellite mission, has been developing solar sail system and mission designs for over 20 years (Kieran, “A Milestone for Solar Sailing,” The Space Review, 8/9/10, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1677/1)

UMich 7 Week Seniors 67Solar Sails Aff

Very-long-duration thrusting without consuming propellant is the attractive feature of this technology. The catch is that very large sails are needed in order to achieve useful levels of thrust. To understand why, it helps to know something about the main figure of merit for a solar-sail equipped spacecraft, which is its mass-to-area ratio—that is, the total mass of the spacecraft (including the sail), divided by the total reflecting area of its solar sail. The smaller this ratio is, the more maneuverable the spacecraft will be. Solar sailors have learned that achieving ratios in the range of 10 to 20 grams per square meter will enable numerous useful missions. A relatively low-mass spacecraft (50 kilograms, say, typical of modern microsatellites) would need to deploy a solar sail of 2,500 to 5,000 square meters to achieve a ratio in that range (that’s a quarter to half a hectare, which is to say about an acre). If the sail was made in the form of a square, it would be 50 to 70 meters on a side; for comparison, the solar arrays on the International Space Station (which are generally considered to be pretty big space structures) are about 77 meters from tip to tip. Making such large, low-mass mirrors actually turns out to be fairly easy, using thin plastic films with extremely thin metalized coatings. This type of material is very familiar to satellite designers, who use multi-layer blankets of aluminized polyimide or polyethylene as thermal insulation. However, finding ways to stow such sails compactly enough for launch, to deploy them reliably once in space, and to control them once deployed has been much more challenging. The first serious attempt to do so was at NASA JPL in the late 1970s, where a preliminary design was conceived for a truly enormous solar sail—a mass of around 5,000 kilograms, a sail area of 625,000 square meters and a mass/area ratio of 8 grams per square meter—that was intended to rendezvous with Halley’s Comet in 1986. The ambition of that mission proposal exceeded NASA’s willingness to fund development, but it sparked interest in solar sail development among space engineers worldwide, who have grown to form a group with a real sense of common purpose and community.

Must increase NASA’s budget for solar sailing to solve further testingGilster 10 - professional writer specializing in computers and technology, author of the bestselling The Internet Navigator and Finding It on the Internet (Paul, “Solar Sails: State of the Art 2010,” Centauri Dreams, 1/12/10, http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=7545)

Centauri Dreams readers know that I’m a great supporter of solar sailing as a technology that has interstellar ramifications as well as immediate practical value right here in the Solar System. What’s particularly appealing about the solar sail is that we’ve already shaken out many of the problems and are ready to begin testing sails in space, which is why it’s so frustrating to see NASA and ESA locked in to budgetary constraints that keep that vital next step from happening. NanoSail-D is one cheap way we might fly a sail soon, and so is The Planetary Society’s LightSail project, but as with so many aspects of the space program, we seem to be well behind earlier optimistic schedules.

Government funding via NASA is the key internal linkGilster 09 - professional writer specializing in computers and technology, author of the bestselling The Internet Navigator and Finding It on the Internet (Paul, “A Solar Sail Manifesto,” Centauri Dreams, 4/30//09, http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=7545)

And so on. It’s been ninety years since Friedrich Tsander and Konstantin Tsiolkovsky wrote about practical solar sailing and high time we got a sail into Earth orbit to test what can and cannot be done with sunlight. NASA has cut solar sail funding just at the

UMich 7 Week Seniors 68Solar Sails Affpoint when we were closing on having the technology operational, as least for test purposes, and the European Space Agency is likewise turning its attentions elsewhere. The Marshall Space Flight Center team has a second NanoSail-D ready for deployment, but who will launch it, who will pay, and when will the event occur? Best to keep The Planetary Society’s efforts in full gear, because someone has to do this.

AT: NASA FUNDING SOLAR SAILS NOWNASA has empirically been successful in developing solar sails but more funding is necessaryJohnson et al. 10 – Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA (Les, Roy Young, Edward Montgomery, and Dean Alhorn. “Status of solar sail technology within NASA, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, 10/23/10, http://www.kkccyu.cjb.net/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-51S25KP-2-7&_cdi=5738&_user=4861547&_pii=S0273117710007982&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=12%2F21%2F2010&_sk=999999999&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkzV&_valck=1&md5=38e6f214ebf40478f46af053b3956e58&ie=/sdarticle.pdf)In the early 2000s, NASA made substantial progress in the development of solar sail propulsion systems for use in robotic science and exploration of the solar system. Two different 20-m solar sail systems were produced. NASA has successfully completed functional vacuum testing in their Glenn Research Center’s Space Power Facility at Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The sails were designed and developed by Alliant Techsystems Space Systems and L’Garde, respectively. The sail systems consist of a central structure with four deployable booms that support each sail. These sail designs are robust enough for deployment in a one-atmosphere, one-gravity environment and are scalable to much larger solar sail s – perhaps as large as 150 m on a side. Computation modeling and analytical simulations were performed in order to assess the scalability of the technology to the larger sizes that are required to implement the first generation of missions using solar sails. Furthermore, life and space environmental effects testing of sail and component materials was also conducted. NASA terminated funding for solar sails and other advanced space propulsion technologies shortly after these ground demonstrations were completed. In order to capitalize on the $30 M investment made in solar sail technology to that point, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center funded the NanoSail-D, a subscale solar sail system designed for possible small spacecraft applications. The NanoSail-D mission flew on board a Falcon-1 rocket, launched August 2, 2008. As a result of the failure of that rocket, the NanoSail-D was never successfully given the opportunity to achieve orbit. The NanoSail-D flight spare was flown in the Fall of 2010. This review paper summarizes NASA’s investment in solar sail technology to date and discusses future opportunities. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of COSPAR

Currently, NASA is focusing on smaller solar sail systems, but a larger scaled demonstration is needed Johnson et al. 10 – Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA (Les, Roy Young, Edward Montgomery, and Dean Alhorn. “Status of solar sail technology within NASA, NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, 10/23/10, http://www.kkccyu.cjb.net/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V3S-51S25KP-2-7&_cdi=5738&_user=4861547&_pii=S0273117710007982&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=12%2F21%2F2010&_sk=999999999&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkzV&_valck=1&md5=38e6f214ebf40478f46af053b3956e58&ie=/sdarticle.pdf) In the early 2000s, NASA made substantial progress in the development of solar sail propulsion systems for use in robotic science and exploration of the solar system. Two different 20-m solar sail systems were produced . NASA has successfully completed functional vacuum testing in their Glenn Research Center’s Space Power Facility at Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The sails were designed and developed by Alliant Techsystems Space Systems and L’Garde, respectively. The sail systems consist of a

UMich 7 Week Seniors 69Solar Sails Affcentral structure with four deployable booms that support each sail. These sail designs are robust enough for deployment in a one-atmosphere, one-gravity environment and are scalable to much larger solar sails – perhaps as large as 150 m on a side . Computation modeling and analytical simulations were performed in order to assess the scalability of the technology to the larger sizes that are required to implement the first generation of missions using solar sails. Furthermore, life and space environmental effects testing of sail and component materials was also conducted. NASA terminated funding for solar sails and other advanced space propulsion technologies shortly after these ground demonstrations were completed. In order to capitalize on the $30 M investment made in solar sail technology to that point, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center funded the NanoSail-D, a subscale solar sail system designed for possible small spacecraft applications. The NanoSail-D mission flew on board a Falcon-1 rocket, launched August 2, 2008. As a result of the failure of that rocket, the NanoSail-D was never successfully given the opportunity to achieve orbit. The NanoSail-D flight spare was flown in the Fall of 2010.

AT: SOLAR SAILS INFEASIBLESail construction is low cost and feasible with existing Mylar materialsWest, et. al, 3 – scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory at CalTech (2003, John West, David Lichodziejewski, Billy Derbès L’Garde, Inc., Rich Reinert Ball Aerospace, Dr. Keith Belvin, Richard Pappa NASA Langley Research Center, “Bringing an Effective Solar Sail Design Toward TRL”, http://www.lgarde.com/papers/2003-4659.pdf)

Mylar (6) has been selected for utilization as the sail membranes. This material, used in the electronics industry, is low cost and readily available. An example of a sail fabricated with Mylar is shown in figure 10. This sail was fabricated and tested for the Team Encounter program. The sail was deployed in the orientation to gravity shown demonstrating the feasibility of successful deployment of these thins films. The tension load in the sail due to gravity is roughly 600 times greater than the tension load generated by the solar flux, deployment in gravity is highly conservative and gives good confidence for deployment in 0 g. Test and analysis have been conducted to ensure Mylar is compatible with the space environment for the intended mission duration. Special coatings are utilized to maximize heat rejection to space, keeping the Mylar below its melting point in orbits as close as 0.25 AU from the sun. These coatings are concurrently optimized to shield the Mylar from the degrading effects of ultra-violet (UV) radiation. Tests and analysis have been conducted showing that even after exposure to the maximum expected particle radiation doses, the mechanical properties are ample to withstand the expected sail loading conditions. These specialized coatings, coupled with the low stress concentrations afforded by the striped sail architecture, and the low cost and high availability, make Mylar an excellent choice for use as a solar sail membrane.

AT: LARGE DEMONSTRATION IMPOSSIBLELarge scale solar sails are both possible up to 80,000 square meters and can be operational in a few yearsPrice et al. 2001 – works in the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology (Humphrey W. Price, Juan Ayon, Charles Garner, Gerhard Klose, Edward Mettler, “Designs for a Solar Sail Demonstration Mission,” 2001, http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/12303/1/01-0335.pdf) CONCLUSIONSOur preliminary studies have indicated that a demonstration mission of a fully operational solar sail can be undertaken in the next few years with minimal development risk . Our reference design gives us confidence that sail subsystem areal

UMich 7 Week Seniors 70Solar Sails Affdensities of l4 g/m2 or less can be achieved in the near term, enabling such important and unique missions as Geostorm and Solar Polar Imager. Preliminary analyses have indicated that square sails with purely cantilevered booms can be built as large as 20,000 m2, and by attaching four of these sails together, a derivative of this technology can be built as large as 80,000 m’. Other near term mission possibilities utilizing this level of sail technology include a pole sitter to hover over the north pole, a geotail mission to explore the earth’s magnetic tail, and fast flyby missions to the outer planets or to the Kuiper belt.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 71Solar Sails Aff

AT: CAN’T DEVELOP FAST ENOUGH Solar sail technology will eventually enable a satellite to reach the nearest star within 50 yearsGrossman, 2k – freelance writer who has written for the LA Times and CalTech (2000, Joel Grossman, Engineering and Science at CalTech, “Solar Sailing: The Next Big Space Craze?”, vol. 4)With a name like solar sailing, the technology sounds like it could be Southern California’s next beach-sport craze. But the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is managed for NASA by Caltech, is planning to leave the Pacific Ocean far behind. Plans on the drawing board run the gamut from communications satellites hovering over Earth’s poles, held in position by solar sails, to spacecraft hoisting giant, ultrathin sails for journeys exploring interstellar space. Perhaps the grandest mission of all will be an interstellar probe. Its destination: Alpha Centauri, the sun’s nearest neighboring star, approximately four and a half light-years away. Lasers as powerful as 10,000 suns, focused on the craft from Earth-orbiting satellites, could one day accelerate such a probe to one-tenth the speed of light. At that clip, it would reach Alpha Centauri within the professional lifetime of a scientist, arriving there in 40 to 50 years. But that’s going to be a while. JPL scientists estimate that a more near-term precursor spacecraft powered only by sunlight could cover the 25 trillion miles, or 273,000 astronomical units (AUs; an AU is 93 million miles, or 150 million kilometers, the average distance between Earth and the sun), at a speed of 15 AUs per year. This is equivalent to flying from Los Angeles to New York City in 63 seconds, about nine times faster than the orbital speed of the Space Shuttle. At 160,000 miles per hour, the solar-sail probe would be speeding through space five times faster than the 3-AU-per-year speed of Voyager 1, a conventionally propelled spacecraft launched in 1977 that is currently our most distant space probe. An interstellar precursor mission launched in 2010, the earliest projected date, would overtake the then-41-year-old Voyager 1 in 2018. It would take 100 millennia for Voyager 1 to reach Alpha Centauri, but only 20 millennia for the sailcraft.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 72Solar Sails Aff

AT: ANY POLITICS DA (OBAMA GOOD/BAD/ELECTIONS)Space isn’t a major issue in Congress or the public—plan wouldn’t be percievedBrooks 8. (4/14/8. Jeff, the founder and director of the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration. The Space Review. “Introducing the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exlporation”It’s time for the space advocacy movement to kick things up a notch. In fact, it’s time for the space advocacy movement to kick things up several notches. Earlier this year, the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration came into being. It is a fully-empowered political action committee devoted to the promotion of a robust American space program. As such, it will fill a critical gap that has hindered the space advocacy movement for far too long.There are many outstanding space interest groups. They do critical work in educating the public, raising awareness about space exploration and undertaking such amazing independent projects as the Planetary Society’s Cosmos 1 solar sail. In addition, they often encourage their members to notify their elected representatives about various space policy issues. But none of the existing space interest organizations can do what a political action committee can do. Because of the limitations imposed by their tax-exempt status, none of the existing groups can openly endorse or oppose candidates for office or make financial contributions to political campaigns. Tax status aside, there is an understandable reluctance among many in the space advocacy community to getting involved in the murky world of electoral politics. In my time, I have worked on political campaigns as a policy analyst and staffer, learning the ropes in the cutthroat world of Texas politics (if you think politics in Washington is rough, try spending some time in Austin). I have walked the halls of the Texas Legislature and the United States Congress as a professional lobbyist. The issues on which I have worked run the gamut from children’s health insurance and identity theft protection to reducing interest rates on student loans and reforming the electoral process. But ever since I attended Space Camp as a young boy, the exploration and colonization of space has been my passion. By establishing the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration, I hope to use my experience in politics and lobbying to further the cause of space exploration and contribute to the goal of creating a spacefaring civilization. For far too long, space exploration has been an invisible issue on the political campaign trails of America. While the 2008 election cycle has seen more discussion of space issues than we have seen in previous years, it still ranks very far down the list of priorities when compared to nearly every other issue. Not surprisingly, candidates tend to avoid the subject of space exploration on the campaign trail, either through simple disinterest or to avoid giving their opponents an opportunity to accuse them of fiscal extravagance. Since space exploration is not an important subject on the campaign trail, there is not much incentive to make it a major issue in Congress.

AT: POLITICS DA (OBAMA GOOD) Plan popular—exploration is universally popularHeyman, et. al, 5 – Senior Fellow and Project Director at CSIS (David, Human Space Exploration Initiative Team, “The Still Untrodden Heights: Global Imperatives for Space Exploration in the 21 st Century”, http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/suth.pdf)

The human space exploration activities that have been carried out since the end of the Apollo Program are the byproduct of these fractured motivations: trying to be all things to all people, and in the end satisfying no one. New ventures in space need to face this reality and set priorities for human space exploration activities, and leaders should distinguish between first-order and second-order motivations for exploration. For example, national identity, security, and political and economic motivations aren’t goals in themselves – they are the hope for second-order effects as the result of exploration. Scientific interests are important, but can in many cases be satisfied more effectively through robotic missions, or research on the planet. Only where there is a clear case that human space exploration has the unique potential to deliver scientific benefits should science drive the mission. After these motivations are removed, discovery and survival remain as the two first-order motivations for human space exploration. If human space exploration is to be expanded and sustained, these two motivations need to be the emphasis of efforts to build public support. If public support initiatives are focused too heavily on other motivations, then these justifications for space activities can be too easily refuted.

***AT COMMON OFF-CASE ARGS

UMich 7 Week Seniors 73Solar Sails AffCritics can produce counterarguments about other means to develop the economy, improve the political situation, or advance the course of science. Only in the case of the latter two motivations – discovery and survival – does human space exploration offer the possibility of unique and unassailable benefits. This statement is likely to be viewed skeptically in many quarters, given the political realities of the present day. But if human space exploration is going to move forward in this century, then these must be the ultimate rationales, and they must be made openly and honestly. This will not easily be accepted in the short-term; but these motivations can serve as the basis for a new decades-long initiative to build support for human space exploration and settlement.

AT: SOLAR SAILS BAD TURNS/DASNon Unique—US is already proposing solar sailingCalamia 10(Joseph-- Science Editor at Yale University Press and MA Sciene @ MIT and BA @ Cornell, “Solar Sailing”, November 2010, ieee Spectrum, http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/solar-sailing)

John F. Kennedy called space "this new ocean." This year, we're finally starting to sail on it. In May, Japan's space agency launched a craft that steals momentum from energetic photons blowing off the sun for a free ride through the solar system. The concept isn't exactly new. Back in 1974, NASA's Mariner 10 spacecraft used the light hitting its solar arrays to adjust its angle on the way to Mercury. Given Japan's success, sailing prospects seem better than ever. NASA plans to launch a sail this year, and in 2011, the Planetary Society expects its own craft will be ready to fly. By the 2030s, the European company Thales Alenia Space hopes to launch "data clippers"—essentially sailing hard drives that could shuttle data between probes exploring Saturn's and Jupiter's moons and Earth. Les Johnson, now NASA's deputy manager for the Advanced Concepts Office, helped develop solar sails for the agency in the early 2000s. Besides their rather practical applications, as probes monitoring Earth's poles or as part of a solar storm warning system, Johnson says a craft could sail to the nearest neighboring star system in less than 1000 years—a feat he estimates would take 75 000 years using chemical propulsion. Of course, for that you'd need a sail the size of Alabama deployed from a probe that's closer to the sun than Mercury. IKAROS Image: JAXA IKAROS (Japan) Already cruising, IKAROS (Interplanetary Kite-craft Accelerated by Radiation Of the Sun) is technically a solar-powered sail. The craft's almost 200-square-meter polyimide reflector, only 0.0075 millimeter thick, has solar panel patches to exploit light for both propulsion and power and LCD panels that steer the craft by changing the reflectivity of certain segments. Electric_Sail Image: Alexandre D. Szames/ANTIGRAVITE Electric Sail (Europe) Solar wind, made up of sun-spewed charged particles, might also prove a useful means to sail. Pekka Janhunen, a research fellow at the Finnish Meteorological Institute, has plans for what's called an electric sail. The craft would charge 50 to 100 tethers, each 20 to 30 kilometers long. The resulting electric field would reflect protons in the solar wind to propel the proposed 100-kilogram craft. Five European Union countries are discussing a 3-year project to build laboratory prototypes of craft components. LightSail-1 Image: Planetary Society LightSail-1 (The Planetary Society) The launch malfunction that doomed its first solar sail, Cosmos-1, in 2005 has not discouraged the Planetary Society. The space advocacy group, based in Pasadena, Calif., expects that its LightSail-1 will be ready for launch in 2011. Three cube-shaped satellites, or "cubesats," each 10 centimeters to a side, will hold the 32-square-meter Mylar sail and the craft's electronics and controls.

N/U --- solar sails being put into space nowAtkinson 9 – writer for Universe Today (11/9, Nancy, “Planetary Society to Launch Three Separate Solar Sails”, http://www.universetoday.com/44551/planetary-society-to-launch-three-separate-solar-sails/, accessed June 25, 2011)

On the 75th anniversary of astronomer Carl Sagan’s birth, the Planetary Society announced their plans to sail a spacecraft on sunlight alone by the end of 2010. Called LightSail, the project will launch three separate spacecraft over the course of several years, beginning with LightSail-1, which will demonstrate that sunlight alone can propel a spacecraft in Earth orbit. LightSails 2 and 3, will travel farther into space. Sagan, co-founder of the Planetary Society was a long-time advocate of solar sailing.Lightsail-1 will fit into a volume of just three liters before the sails unfurl to fly on sunlight. On today’s 365 Days of Astronomy podcast, Sagan’s widow and collaborator, Ann Druyan said this project is a “Wright Brothers Kitty Hawk-type” enterprise of inventing and proving a new way of moving through the cosmos.

AT: SATELLITE CROWDING DASolar Sails could create more orbital room and stop crowding

UMich 7 Week Seniors 74Solar Sails AffBeradelli 10 (Phil—writer for Science Now, “How to Alleviate an Orbital Traffic Jam”, Science Now, July 28, 2010, http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/07/how-to-alleviate-an-orbital-traf.html)

There's gridlock in orbit. More than 400 telecommunications satellites, plus an indeterminate number of retired, failed, and secret spacecraft, occupy a narrow band of space some 35,000 kilometers above Earth's equator. Now, researchers have found a way to alleviate the congestion: attaching solar sails to satellites that would propel them 10 to 30 kilometers north or south of the standard orbit. Space experts say that such sails could also open up other orbital positions that were previously considered unattainable. Telecommunications satellites must remain in the same position above Earth at all times—in a so-called geosynchronous orbit—so that satellite dishes don't have to constantly swivel to track them. Thanks to the laws of gravity and orbital mechanics, the only way for a satellite to maintain a geosynchronous position has been to orbit above the equator. But this prime real estate is growing scarce. The satellites could move north or south, but the extra rocket fuel needed to maintain these less-stable orbital positions would be expensive and would limit the life of the craft. That's where solar sails come in. A large square of reflectively coated Mylar—say, a hundred meters on a side—could catch enough sunlight to propel a satellite above or below the plane of the equator and maintain enough thrust to hold it in geostationary position. To see if the idea would work, aerospace engineer Colin McInnes and one of his graduate students, Shahid Baig, at the University of Strathclyde in the United Kingdom started with calculations developed by Robert Forward, a physicist and NASA consultant. Forward, who died in 2002, posited that the photons of sunlight streaming across the solar system contained sufficient energy to push a solar-sail–arrayed satellite out of geostationary orbit and maintain its new position without the need for heavy, liquid-fueled thrusters. The Japanese IKAROS spacecraft, which was launched last month, is testing the basic solar-sail concept. Other scientists questioned Forward's calculations, because, they argued, his figures weren't precise enough. But using superaccurate computer models, McInnes and Baig have determined that Forward was indeed correct. The new calculations, published in the May/June Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, showed that sunlight hitting a solar sail would be sufficient to push the satellite into a geostationary orbit. And due to its continuous pressure, the sunlight could also hold the spacecraft in that orbit indefinitely without the need for thrusters. Although the research provides only a theoretical proof of concept, experts see a bright future for solar-sail satellites. For example, says aerospace engineer Ben Diedrich of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Silver Spring, Maryland, researchers could park satellites over Earth's poles to provide continuous climate monitoring at these latitudes. Or the sails could push solar-research spacecraft into more advantageous orbits to study the sun. Solar-sail–assisted orbits, he says, are "one more viable option for future mission planners to consider."

The sails would levitate the satellties to put them slightly above or below the GEOWarwick 10 (Graham-- BSc in aeronautical engineering (Southampton University, UK); Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, “More room in Geo, Scots say”, Aviation Week, July 28, 2010, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/space/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A04ce340e-4b63-4d23-9695-d49ab661f385Post%3A77d0551d-26c0-427f-b08a-383e60d6c580)

Geostationary orbit getting crowded? Well, create a new one. It's possible, say Scottish researchers, confirming an idea first proposed by physicist Robert L. Forward in 1984, but later branded impossible by his critics. Forward, also reknowned as a science-fiction writer, proposed that solar sails could be "levitated" by the pressure of sunlight above or below the usual geostationary orbit, which lies on the Earth's equatorial plane. Critics dismissed such light-levitated "displaced orbits" as impossible because of orbital dynamics, but engineers at the University of Strathclyde's Advanced Space Concepts Laboratory say they have proved Forward was right. Displaced geostationary orbits sound like mathematical oddities, but could have real practical use as they would allow more satellites to be deployed north and south of the equator to meet growing demand for communications. The displacement distance is small - 10-50km above or below the equator - because of the limited thrust generated by the sail, but Strathclyde says hybrid solar sails that use both light pressure and electric propulsion would incrase the distance. Researchers say other work is investigating

UMich 7 Week Seniors 75Solar Sails Affpolar stationary orbits, or "pole sitters", which would use continuous low thrust to allow spacecraft to remain on the Earth's polar axis above the Arctic or Antarctic for climate monitoring.

AT: SPENDING/FUNDING TRADEOFF DAThe sail could be small enough to ride with other payloadsMontgomery 10 (Edward E. Montgomery IV, United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command, “Power Beamed Photon Sails: New Capabilities Resulting From Recent Maturation Of Key Solar Sail And High Power Laser Technologies”, 2010)

Potentially disruptive space technologies have emerged over the last five years that are having a significant impact on developing strategies for bridging the gap between laboratory demonstration and mission applications of new space technologies. They are: (1) significantly lower cost launch of auxiliary payloads, and (2) smaller, more capable spacecraft buses enabled by the continuing pace in electronics and information technology. On December 16, 2006, NASA Ames Research Center ushered in a new era when it launched a payload the size of a loaf of bread named GeneSat-1. It was a fully functioning satellite including s-band and UHF radios, an on-board core computer, a passive attitude control system, a photovoltaic/battery power system, and a peer-reviewed biological science experiment section. The small, low-earth-orbiting satellite was based on the CubeSat specification and was deployed from a fully enclosed jack-in-the-box deployer mounted on the fourth stage motor case of an Orbital Sciences Minotaur Launcher. GeneSat-1 was neither the primary nor the secondary payload on this launch. Those payloads bore the brunt of financing most of the launch costs. Most launches are funded by government agencies. A few years ago it was recognized that manifesting multiple payloads on a launcher usually resulted in unused excess capacity. Furthermore, this was happening on almost every launch. The CubeSat program has come about to fill that niche. Small payloads can be launched with only having to meet the burden of integration costs, not the cost of buying the launcher or paying for basic set-up of the launch and mission operations infrastructure.

AT: SPACE EXPLORATION ADV CPSSolar sails are comparatively better than competing propulsion systems McInnes, 3 – Professor of Space Systems Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow (December 2003, Colin McInnes, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, “Solar Sailing: Mission Applications and Engineering Challenges”, Vol. 361, No. 1813, JSTOR)

Again, due to the potentially unlimited Av capability of solar sails, multiple small body rendezvous missions are possible, as are small-body-sample returns. For exam- ple, a sample return from comet Encke can be achieved with a mission duration of the order of 5 yr, again using a sail with a characteristic acceleration of 1 mm s-2. An Encke mission is particularly difficult to achieve, since the comet has a high eccentricity, requiring significant energy for both the rendezvous and return phase. Also of interest is the possibility of a survey of multiple asteroids. This is a par- ticularly attractive and cost-effective concept, since the mission is essentially open ended, allowing repeated science returns using the same suite of instruments. A solar sail with autonomous on-board navigation and planning software offers exciting pos- sibilities for such missions . For fast Solar System-escape missions, solar sailing offers significant performance gains over competing propulsion systems. For these missions, to the heliosphere (where the solar wind merges with interstellar space) at 100 AU and beyond, retro- propulsion is not required so that trajectories using a close solar pass can be used to accelerate payloads to extremely high cruise speeds. Using a high performance solar sail with a characteristic acceleration of the order of 3 mm s-2 and a close solar pass at 0.25 AU, cruise speeds of over 15 AU per year can be achieved resulting in relatively short trip times to the edge of interstellar space.

Conventional exploration won’t even reach Mercury – solar sails key

UMich 7 Week Seniors 76Solar Sails AffMcInnes, 3 – Professor of Space Systems Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow (December 2003, Colin McInnes, Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, “Solar Sailing: Mission Applications and Engineering Challenges”, Vol. 361, No. 1813, JSTOR)

Although it is a relatively near neighbour of Earth, Mercury is a largely unknown body due to the large energy required to transfer spacecraft to the inner Solar System. Acquiring and then returning a surface sample from Mercury is therefore one of the most demanding, high-energy Solar System missions that can be envisaged. A sample return is of particular interest, since Mercury appears to have frozen volatiles in its permanently shaded polar craters, deposited by cometary impacts early in the history of Solar System. The propulsive requirements for such a sample-return mission makes it an essentially impossible mission for conventional chemical propulsion, and an exceedingly difficult mission for solar-electric propulsion. Previous internal studies of a Mercury sample-return mission by the ESA defined a requirement for an Ariane V launch vehicle and a large solar-electric propulsion cruise stage to deliver a lander, ascent vehicle and Earth-return vehicle to Mercury. A combination of solar-electric propulsion and multiple gravity assists was required for the inward transfer, with chemical propulsion used for capture to a 500 km altitude polar parking orbit. A separate spin-stabilized Earth-return stage was envisaged using chemical propulsion.

AT: DYSON DOTS HURT AGRICULTURE

Solar Sails Dyson Dots would not decrease agricultural yieldRoy, Kennedy, and Fields 10(Ken-- engineer working in Oak Ridge, Robert--president of the Ultimax Group Inc and Congressional Fellow on House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space, and David-- NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador, “Mitigating Global Warming”, Utlimax Group Inc, Springerlink)

Suppose at some time in the future that we have built a major manufacturing facility on the moon and it has been building and launching mirrors for 10 years. Furthermore, suppose that the scientists and engineers then tell us we have reached our goal and have finally positioned enough mirrors at the proper point to reduce global temperatures to United Nations-specified levels. It is a world holiday! You go outside and look up at the sun, using the appropriate eye safety gear provided. What do you see? Nothing special. It is not possible to detect even 700,000 square kilometers of Dyson dots floating somewhere inside the sun-Earth L1 point against the backdrop of the sun itself, because their dark umbras never get to you on the ground. Nor are you likely to feel the effect on your skin, any more than you feel the shadow of a bird flying overhead. Using special devices designed to image sunspots, you might see a strange cluster of black dots in the center of the sun if you were willing to make the effort. To most people going about their normal affairs on this planet, however, they would be invisible, like all good infrastructures. You shrug and decide to go seek more interesting sights. The farmers in this future have pointed out at the start of the Dyson Dot Project that a quarter-percent reduction in sunlight means a quarter-percent loss in crop yield. But the farmers, no less obstreperous than the ones today, have been assured that no such shortfall would happen. It turns out that plants are not very efficient at using the sunlight provided to them. Chlorophyll uses only narrow bands of light in the blue-purple and orange- red regions of the spectrum. They paradoxically do not use green at all, which is right near the peak (most abundant energy) of the solar spectrum. Green light is reflected away, which is why green plants look that way. So a number of Dyson dots have been modified to augment ground-side agriculture by converting some of the energy they collect to particular frequencies used by chlorophyll. This supplemental light is beamed to Earth using weak lasers carried on special dots. There is even talk of augmenting these frequencies above natural levels, but only for Earth's agricultural regions. Best of all is the continuing dividend that the Dyson Dot Consortium has been paying to the citizens of Earth via power sales and reduced insurance premiums (The economic justification is a topic for another book, however.)

AT: RUSSIA RELATIONS DA

UMich 7 Week Seniors 77Solar Sails AffSolar Sails are an area of cooperation with the Russians – we use their launch rocketsITAR-TASS News Agency 05 (“Space Agency Head Says Russian-US Solar Sail Experiment to Continue,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, 9/5/5, lexis nexis)Moscow, 9 September: The Solar Sail international space project will continue, the head of the Federal Space Agency (Roskosmos), Anatoliy Perminov, said today during a live dialogue with listeners of the Mayak radio station."Because the American side has initiated the project, our colleagues have taken the decision to continue it. The Russian side intends to propose a new rocket instead of the Volna," Perminov said. The two previous launches failed. Then the spacecraft after all failed to separate from the booster rocket and were destroyed in the dense layers of the atmosphere.

Solar sails are a unique venue for cooperation between the US and RussiaKlaes 03 – member of the Planetary Society and is the Vice President of the Boston Chapter of the National Space Society (“Cosmos 1 Solar Sail Mission,” Coseti.org, 9/24/03, http://www.coseti.org/cosmos1.htm)Turning Swords into SpacecraftsBeing the first celestial vessel propelled by sunlight is not the only notable achievement of the Cosmos 1 project. The satellite has also taken on the important tangible symbolism as an instrument for peace and knowledge born from the war machinery of an era that once threatened to bring down our entire civilization. One current technical drawback to solar sails is that they cannot launch themselves from Earth's large gravity well. Chemical rockets are still the chosen method to reach outer space from our planet's surface. In the case of Cosmos 1, there has been a wonderful benefit from requiring an "old-fashioned" boost: The lifting vessel - a modified submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), once among the deadliest of weapons in the Cold War - will carry not a nuclear warhead that could have killed millions. Instead, it will hold a satellite that could pave the way for humanity to literally expand into the Milky Way galaxy and beyond.Druyan describes the situation: "We have converted a weapon of mass destruction into a new way to explore the universe. We are so proud to have the opportunity to do this."To further the spirit of international cooperation, along with the means to keep the mission relatively inexpensive as space projects go (just four million dollars, including parts purchased from Radio Shack), Russia's Babakin Space Center in Moscow was contracted to build, launch, and operate Cosmos 1. The two superpower nations that once tried to outdo each other in the heavens for geopolitical prestige are now reaping the rewards of cooperation through the Cosmos 1 project.

AT: FREE MARKET/PRIVATIZATION CPGovernment action is crucial to long-term deep space missions that are crucial to solve the aff – the risk of failure is too high for the private sectorGass 4/18/11 - President at Interspace News.Com (Robert, “The Future of the US Space Program and What it Could Become,” Interspace News.com, http://www.interspacenews.com/FeatureArticle/tabid/130/Default.aspx?id=6445)Human spaceflight is poised to become an industry unto itself and NASA needs to support this emerging industry. Simply put - NASA needs to get out of the conventional launch service business and get into the deep space exploration business. It is time to move on! NASA should be working on the hard stuff – revolutionary technologies like rail launchers, scram jet technology, ion and nuclear propulsion systems, solar sails etc. These are technologies that will dramatically change the way we do business in space in the near future. NASA should also be pushing the frontier back with the development of advanced, highly flexible, and evolvable, manned spacecraft and super heavy lift

UMich 7 Week Seniors 78Solar Sails Afflaunchers capable of supporting the next logical step in manned space exploration - deep space missions that will eventually lay the riches of the solar system at our feet.   These are projects that no individual, or company for that matter, could risk developing on their own . The price of failure is just too high, but a government is another matter . The government’s job is to take the risks that nobody else can and develop the technologies that will be needed to open the new frontier. Then it needs to move on and let the people, with support from the government, do the rest. The key word here is move on – not stop.

Government is key because of the scale, costs, long timeframe of solar sails. Their cards ignore the role government infrastructure has played in aiding private success.Vulpetti et al., 8. (Giovanni, physcisit, chair of the Interstellar Space Exploration Committee. Les Johnson: Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at the NASA George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. Gregory L. MatloffL assistant professor of physics at New York City College of Technology (NYCCT), coordinates the astronomy program at that institution, has consulted for the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. “Progress to Date” Springer New York.)Much work has been accomplished in sail design and much still remains to be done. But as the next sections indicate, government space agencies and private organizations have done much to remove this concept from the realm of science fiction and achieve progress toward the day when this innovative mode of in-space transportation will become operational. The Role of Space Agencies Much photon-sail research and development has been accomplished by national and transnational space agencies such as NASA and ESA . To better understand these contributions, it's a good idea to review the environment in which the space agencies operate. The advantage of the space agencies over small-scale entrepreneurs is essentially one of scale . Since space agencies are governmental entities, they have the ability to plan long-term research and development efforts supported by tax revenues. For example, much has been written in recent months about the success of privately funded suborbital space flights at a fraction of the cost of similar government-funded efforts. While these comparisons make a certain amount of sense, they entirely ignore the cost of the decades-long government-sponsored space infrastructure. Space Ship 1 would not have so readily won the X-Prize for repeated flights to heights in excess of 100 kilometers if Burt Rutan and associates had had to construct the Edwards Air Force Base and repeat the materials research leading to the technology used in their vehicle.

Even the largest private solar sail effort failed due to a lack of fundingVulpetti et al. 8 – served as a chair of the Interstellar Space Exploration Committee at the International Academy of Astronautics, acted as a consultant in a team to NASA for studying original mission concepts (Giovanni, Les Johnson – Deputy Manager for the Advanced Concepts Office at NASA, and Gregory L. Matloff - assistant professor of physics at New York City, Solar sails: a novel approach to interplanetary travel, 2008, p.153-159)

But one of the greatest advances to photon-sail technology has resulted from the very serious work of the largest nongovernmental space organization of them all, the Planetary Society in Pasadena, California. Funded by member contributions and large donors including Ann Druyan (who is Carl Sagan's widow), the Planetary Society developed Cosmos 1, the first flight-ready spacecraft in which the photon sail would be the prime method of propulsion. To conserve funds, both the suborbital and orbital

UMich 7 Week Seniors 79Solar Sails AffCosmos 1 launches were conducted using a Russian booster of marginal reliability. Unfortunately, the reliability of this booster must now be classified as less than marginal since both launches failed and the sails plunged to Earth before they could be unfurled. The Planetary Society's directors hope to make another attempt with a more reliable booster If Cosmos 1 does eventually achieve orbit, the pressure of sunlight will be used to alter the craft's orbit. One planned experiment is to beam microwaves to the orbiting craft using a radio telescope to experiment with collimated-energy-beam sailing. It would be nice if both solar and energy-beam sailing concepts can be validated on the same mission!

Permutation solvency—government/private partnerships can accelerate solar sail development Hudgins 2. (2002. Edward Lee—Washington director of The Objectivist Center. Space: The Free Market Frontier. Pages 48-49.)Entrepreneurs as AlliesSome space entrepreneurs are proposing missions that press the limit in technology and scope. They are daring ventures and within them NASA could find co-conspirators in the business of space exploration and exploitation. A case in point is the Encounter 2001 Probe mission, shown in Figure 3-5. It is an example of an entrepreneurial venture designed to proceed without NASA participation. The mission intends to deploy a functional 70-meter (on a side) solar sail, the first use of a sail for primary mission propulsion. The venture involves technologies of great interest to the govemment. The solar sail technology will establish the state of the art in terms of materials, packaging, and deployment mechanisms. The sail design also makes use of deployable, self-rigidizing beams, a tech- nology useful in the deployment of large space structures. Missions like the Encounter 2001 Probe provide opportunities for unique forms of government-industry space partnership. They combine a high level of innovation with the potential to engage the public in an exciting space experiment. Alliances with such entrepreneurial ventures could help NASA accelerate space technology projects.

Perm solves best—private funding alone can’t solve solar sailsMoyer 2. (8/16/2. Michael writer for Popular Science and Scientific American. “Space Sailing by Sunlight” Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2002-08/space-sailing-sunlight)Ever since space travel began, there has been exactly one way to reach the heavens: rocket engines. But now an entirely new approach is set to launch-a strategy that fights the unyielding pull of gravity with the gentle push of sunlight. The anticipated December blastoff of the Cosmos 1 spacecraft from a Russian submarine will debut the age of solar sailing.Solar sail spacecraft may one day surpass rocket-propelled flight, especially for long journeys, by drawing on a nearly limitless propellant: sunlight. Light is made up of tiny packets of energy called photons, which may be thought of as both waves and particles. Solar sails reflect these photons and push them back. Since each action has an equal opposite reaction, each time a photon is reflected, it in turn pushes back on the spacecraft, slowly accelerating it out into the galaxy.The Cosmos 1 mission is funded by The Planetary Society, a space exploration advocacy group, and Cosmos Studios, a media company headed by Ann Druyan, widow of astronomer Carl Sagan. The mission's goal is to demonstrate that sunlight can affect a spacecraft's trajectory. Success will be measured not in miles traveled, but by how much the sun alters the spacecraft's course.Another mission, one that uses a solar sail to get somewhere, may not be far behind. A company called Team Encounter, of Houston, Texas, is building what it calls Humanity's

UMich 7 Week Seniors 80Solar Sails AffFirst Starship, a solar sail the size of a football field. After launch in 2005, the spacecraft's sails will slowly push it through the solar system and into interstellar space. The private mission is raising money by selling Space Travel Kits-basically sheets of paper on which you can write greetings, attach photos, or even include DNA samples, which will be miniaturized on optical disks and attached to the spacecraft. Should the spacecraft be discovered by a distant civilization, your personalized message might help represent the entire human race. Team Encounter hopes to sell at least 1 million Travel Kits for around $50 apiece; at last count, they had about 930,000 left to sell.And therein lies the problem: Solar sail technology is unlikely to thrive on private funding and, so far, public agencies have been cautious. NASA is interested in the technology but hasn't yet signed on to a project. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is looking into using solar sails to suspend its weather and climate satellites above Earth's poles, giving them continuous coverage of the planet. Many scientists at the European Space Agency (ESA) were excited about the possibility of using solar sails for an upcoming mission to Mercury, whose proximity to the sun gives the sails a much higher available thrust. But that mission will instead use solar-electric thrusters. "Space is a risk-averse business," says Colin McInnes, professor of aerospace engineering at the University of Glasgow. "But if Team Encounter succeeds in getting the spacecraft out of the solar system, that will give a huge boost to solar sailing."

AT: NASA INEFFECTIVE

NASA completed its first solar sails in record time—managers and engineers cooperating over sailsCarroll 10. (8/9/10. Kieran, Ph.d. An engineer with experience working on satellites and developer of the solar sail system for 20 years. “A Milestone for solar sailing” The Space Review. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1677/1)The future of solar sailing The IKAROS mission is an initial, proof-of-principle demonstration of solar sailing, not meant to be an operational mission. It is not designed to use its solar sail to fly to any particular destination: it has far too small a sail and too massive a bus (with a mass/area ratio upwards of 1,500 grams per square meter) to be able to do that. That mission has succeeded brilliantly in meeting its objectives, but there is still considerable further technology development and demonstration needed before solar sails can be put to work. The other presentations at the symposium addressed various further steps along that path—which brings me to another notable aspect of this symposium: reports from other several funded solar sail technology demonstration missions, all planning to fly quite soon. The first planned launch is the flight spare of NASA’s NanoSail-D, which is manifested with FASTSAT on a Minotaur 4 launch from Kodiak, Alaska, into low Earth orbit this fall. Dean Alhorn of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center presented an update on that mission, which comes after the original mission was lost due to the upper-stage failure of the third Falcon 1 rocket in August 2008. The two NanoSail-D satellites were notable for having been developed in a very short period of time (about 8 months) via a collaboration between NASA’s Marshall and dAmes field centers. The technical objectives are fairly simple, although challenging: to deploy a 10-square-meter sail from a 3-kilogram “CubeSat” nanosatellite, which (without any attitude control) will proceed to rapidly de-orbit. The programmatic accomplishments were quite significant, demonstrating the ability of NASA engineers and managers to

UMich 7 Week Seniors 81Solar Sails Affcooperate across field center lines, and accomplish a challenging technical task rapidly, harking back to the “can do” attitude of NASA’s early days.

UMich 7 Week Seniors 82Solar Sails Aff

AT: INTERNATIONAL ACTOR CPSThe US must lead in funding new spaceflight endeavors – it’s crucial for other countries to bandwagon and solveHandberg 10 - Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida (Roger, “The Future of American Human Space Exploration and the ‘Critical Path’,” The Space Review, 1/11/10, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1543/1)Confronting realityThe pattern has been clear: the US leads and others follow . This unipolar posture, however, assumes that the United States is willing to lead in terms of paying the major portion of the costs of any international space project. The likelihood of the Obama Administration dropping or ending the US human spaceflight program is low given the prestige and other considerations that have undergirded US human space exploration since its inception during the Eisenhower administration. Whether the Obama Administration will push forward aggressively or, more likely, seek alternatives is unimportant except that the United States will continue in whatever configuration is agreed upon.What has become clear since the 1980s is that the United States is unwilling or unable (take your pick as to the relevant explanation) to singlehandedly pursue a large-scale human spaceflight endeavor. This reality was hammered home by the ISS difficulties when international partners became critical components in completing and, more importantly, justifying to Congress continuation of the space station program. Without those justifications, the House of Representatives in 1993 was willing to cancel the space station program (cancelation came within one vote on the House floor). NASA’s now traditional strategy of buying into human spaceflight projects with low-ball numbers is increasingly more difficult to justify. Cost overruns will not disappear, but congressional willingness to accept them is becoming more problematic, especially over the next decade as the United States digs out from under the current economic difficulties.There are still many who argue for an American go-it-alone strategy, but the reality is that the horse has already left the barn. The ISS, the centerpiece of a generation of NASA dreams, has created the new reality that international partners must be engaged and their contributions are no longer trivial, so their desires and capabilities become important. The critical path for the completion of the ISS in its final configuration incorporates two international partners, Russia and Canada. For the first time, a participant other than the United States is placed in the position that their actions or failure to act will adversely impact project completion. For example, the Russian delay in completing and orbiting their second module, the Zvezda Service Module, to link up with the first Zarya Control Module led the US to construct an Interim Control Module as a backup in case Zvezda was damaged or lost during launch. Zarya had been paid for by the US, with Zvezda being a Russian contribution to the ISS program that was delayed due to domestic Russian financial issues. The Interim Control Module was a diversion of NASA resources felt necessary if the ISS program was to stay roughly on track.The Canadians, with their Canadarm remote manipulators, are also on the critical path in that use of their capabilities makes the ISS construction process quicker with less necessity for long-endurance and potentially hazardous spacewalks. NASA identified the Canadian contribution on its ISS website thusly: “The installation of the new truss segments and unfurling of the arrays require unprecedented robotic operations. Those operations will use the shuttle and station’s Canadian-built mechanical arms to delicately maneuver school bus-sized station components into place.”2 What is left unspoken is that Canada’s budget issues earlier threatened required a readjustment of Canada’s contribution to the overall cost of the ISS going forward.What is becoming clear is if the United States is to continue its human exploration program, international partners are going to be critical for any large-scale, long-duration human exploration effort. The thrill is gone as evidenced by the increasing difficulty encountered in mustering political support for NASA’s human spaceflight program. Commercial launch programs are likely to partially replace government vehicles for reaching orbit, but space exploration means going places where there exists no immediate commercial market. The costs are enormous given the likely economic returns. You can subsidize commercial flights but that removes them from economic rationality if the market approach is to work. It is better to keep the two separate because both lose in the exchange.

Other countries can’t sustainably develop sustainable exploration missionsHandberg 10 - Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida (Roger, “The Future of American Human Space Exploration and the ‘Critical Path’,” The Space Review, 1/11/10, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1543/1)China and India wax very enthusiastically about future manned missions to orbit, the Moon, and beyond, but have not confronted the funding realities of such long-duration programs against likely benefits. For new national space participants, the thrill is getting there since it marks such a state as a major global technological player, but the

UMich 7 Week Seniors 83Solar Sails Affreality is that long-term human space exploration efforts become ever more expensive, fraught with unanticipated problems, and plagued by delays. All of these factors will fuel domestic calls for retrenchment and other short-term solutions to budget issues even among the new participants. Fortunately for the United States, we lack the goad of the Cold War although nationalism and other competitive factors will continue to fuel our national space program. Those factors will keep the United States in the game, albeit without the war-type funding Apollo generated.

All other countries don’t have the necessary infrastructure for a sustainable solar sail missions:

The weak Chinese private sector and economy limits any sustainable development of solar sails after the demonstration missionOberg 01 (James. Space Power Theory. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF Air University, 2001)China has not been exceptionally successful in garnering commercial funding of its space program. China did not announce how much they charged per launch of Iridium, Chinastar-1 and Sinosat-1 satellites launched recently. Strictly speaking, only Iridium was a foreign customer, since the others were for Chinese domestic use. A reasonable estimate for a CZ-3B launch is about US$50 million- US$60 million. Since China conducted four commercial launches in 1998, two CZ-3Bs and two 2C/SDs, China could have earned US$150 million US$240 million to reimburse a portion of their space program. This constitutes a relatively large percentage but a relatively small total funding source. A strong Chinese economy remains elusive. Well-publicized rocket failures make marketing of its commercial launch capability difficult. The Chinese have the ability to overcome their technical difficulties, but economics will limit China as a space power until the domestic economy can provide greater levels of government and commercial funding.

Russia’s space infrastructure is too aged and its budget is too limited for advances in space capabilitiesHitchens 03 – Director of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (Theresa, "Monsters and Shadows: Left Unchecked, American Fears Regarding Threats to Space Assets Will Drive Weaponization." Disarmament Forum. No. 1 (2003): 15-33)

As a long-time space power, the Russian Federation is highly concerned about maintaining the integrity of both its military and commercial space capabilities. However, that concern emanates less from worries about external threats to its assets, and more from the fact that the Russian space programme has deteriorated due to lack of funding. In June 2001, Yuri Koptev, head of Russian space agency Rosaviakosmos, told the parliament that age and lack of funds were serious issues, with sixtyeight of the Russian Federation's ninety orbiting satellites near or at the end of their operational lives. He further stated that many of the country's forty-three military satellites were simply too old to be considered reliable, and criticized the Russian Federation's meagre space budget of US$193 million as only half of what the agency needs. Indeed, in May 2001, the Russian Federation for a short time lost its photo-reconnaissance capabilities, taking its last two satellites out of orbit (although a replacement 'Kobalt' satellite was launched in June 2001). The Russian Federation's Glonass satellite navigation system (similar to the American GPS network) also is deteriorating; in March 2001, Koptev told parliament that only thirteen of the twenty-four satellites required for the network to fully function were working.

Japan’s Space industry is fundamentally flawed – it’s too dependent on JAXA and there’s no investment in space which means the CP wouldn’t spur the same technological innovation and private investment the plan does

UMich 7 Week Seniors 84Solar Sails AffBerner 05 – works in the National Security Research Division (Steven, “Status of Japan’s Space Industry and its Relationship With JASA,” RAND Corporation, 2005, http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/2005/RAND_TR184.pdf)

The failure of Japanese aerospace firms to successfully compete as prime contractors on the global market is frequently attributed to weakness in the area of system integration. Such a weakness is consistent with the fact that JAXA (and its predecessors) has been the main customer for Japan’s space industry. JAXA, not industry, has developed design requirements for most of their satellites. JAXA serves as the prime contractor and system integrator, and is responsible for acceptance testing and quality assurance. Japanese aerospace firms build to JAXA’s specifications, and provide JAXA with the completed system or subsystem. Contracts tend to be of a fixed-price nature, with little dynamic interaction between the customer (JAXA) and the companies.23 Thus, the structure is undercutting Japanese aerospace companies’ chances to gain important experience. Japanese firms are acting more as subcontractors than as prime contractors. These factors may explain some of the difficulty Japan’s space industry has in converting its prowess in particular subsystems and components to similar strength as prime contractors in the global market.Officials from JAXA noted that they are trying to improve their relationship with industry.24 JAXA has a new Industrial Collaboration Department. The purpose of the department is to improve the transfer of technology both from JAXA to industry and, where possible, from industry to JAXA. The same officials also noted, however, that there is virtually no investment from industry in space. For the two major Japanese aerospace firms, Mitsubishi and NTSpace (formed by the merger of the space units of NEC and Toshiba), space represents a small part of their overall business, and is not strategically important to their success. This may explain why, as a co-chairman of the Committee for NASDA Evaluation’s Subcommittee for Space Transportation observed, there is no tradition of Japanese industry making the investments needed for high reliability space systems. 25